Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Stockton-on-Tees Corporation (No. 1) Bill (Certified Bill),

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, and agreed to.

Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Accrington, Bognor Regis, and Newton Abbot) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Great Torrington, Minehead, and Taf Fechan Water Supply Board) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Uxbridge Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of non-residential training centres at present in existence; and whether the question of opening any further additional centres is at present under consideration?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): There are eight non-residential training centres and three non-residential transfer instructional centres for men. The corresponding numbers of residential centres are one and seven respectively. There are 28 non-residential and one residential training centres for women and girls conducted on behalf of the Ministry by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment. Two additional non-residential training centres for men and four for women will shortly be opened.

Mr. DAY: Is it intended to open any more training centres in the near future in view of the great need for the relief of unemployment?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have just informed the hon. Member.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is not true that in all these centres there are less than 1,000 women being trained at the moment, and, as there are over 200,000 more women unemployed than there were when the Government took office, will the right hon. Lady bear in mind this point when she deals with unemployment, because in all schemes for men there is not one single woman who has received employment?

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Lady say how many of these training centres give training for domestic service?

Miss BONDFIELD: All of the women's training centres.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Lady say to what extent Chisledon is now being used?

Miss BONDFIELD: I should like notice of that question.

DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of disabled ex-service men were unemployed on 1st June, 1930; and what is the proportion of unemployment among disabled ex-service men by comparison with that of the general insured population?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 26th May, 1930, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 30,043 disabled ex-service men on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, This is 7.3 per cent. of the estimated number of men in receipt of disability pensions and disability allowances. The percentage rate of unemployment among all insured men in Great Britain on the same date was 16.1 per cent.

Captain MACDONALD: What steps has the right hon. Lady taken to see that disabled ex-service men are found work?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think that there is another question on ale Paper dealing with that matter.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS (JUVENILES).

Captain MACDONALD: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of juveniles have been transferred from distressed mining areas during the present year; to what districts have they been transferred; for what occupations; and what number have obtained permanent employment in the areas to which they have been transferred?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am having this information compiled and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Lady let us know in that information if there are any girls among those who have been transferred?

Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly.

RELIEF WORK, NEWCASTLE.

Mr. PALIN: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour how many people are being employed on schemes put forward by the Newcastle City Council in the way of relief work; also as to whether special consideration is given to those people who have been unemployed for long periods; and whether any preference is given to them?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of men at present employed on schemes put forward by the Newcastle City Council for the relief of unemployment is 155. In selecting men from the unemployed register for these works special preference, by arrangement with the City Council, is given to married men and single men with dependants according to the length of their unemployment.

INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. EDE: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour by how much the debt on the Unemployment Insurance Fund has been increased during the lifetime of the present Government; and by how much it was increased during the lifetime of their predecessors?

Miss BONDFIELD: The debt of the Unemployment Fund from 1st June, 1929, to 21st June, 1930, increased by £5,640,000. Under the previous Government, i.e., between 4th November, 1924, and 1st June, 1929, the debt increased by £32,118,686.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does the right hon. Lady think that these figures
give any true indication of the present increase of unemployment during the lifetime of the present Government?

Miss BONDFIELD: I was merely asked to give the figures.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has any information as to a general disinclination of women and girls to go into domestice service; and what steps is she taking to overcome this disinclination?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware that some women and girls whose whole experience has been in industry are disinclined to change their occupation and enter domestic service. Where considered desirable, domestic vacancies are brought to the notice of persons attending Employment Exchanges, and where preliminary training is required, the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment are prepared to provide it.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The right hon. Lady has answered the question about women who are already engaged in industry. Can she say what she is doing to try and persuade young girls who have not had any industrial training to take up domestic service?

Miss BONDFIELD: These are being trained in the 28 centres.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does my right hon. Friend propose to give any training to mistresses?

Viscountess ASTOR: And to masters.

Miss LEE: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the regulations issued enable unemployed women who are trained and experienced in some branch of shop or factory work to decline offers of domestic service without thereby jeopardising their rights to unemployment benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: There are no regulations on this matter. It is for the statutory authorities to determine whether an occupation other than that previously followed is suitable in a particular case. In deciding this question they have regard to the claimant's skill and experience in her usual occupation, and the extent of the change of occupation involved.

Miss LEE: Is the Minister aware that there are many women in Lanarkshire who feel that they must accept that
domestic service, whatever their previous training may have been, and will she see that they are not cut off from benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot give an assurance which it does not rest within my power to enforce.

MINERS, DURHAM.

Mr. BATEY: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that large numbers of miners are being discharged in the county of Durham; and whether she has made any inquiry to ascertain if the dismissals are due to economic causes?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware that a considerable number of discharges have taken place which my inquiries indicate to be due generally to shortage of orders or other economic causes.

STATISTICS.

Mr. LAWTHER: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies have been notified to the Employment Exchanges since the beginning of the year; how many of these vacancies have been filled by the Exchanges; and what proportion those filled bear to the total number of labour engagements in the country?

ADULT CLAIMANTS for Unemployment Benefit registered as Wholly Unemployed. Engagements in Insured Work.


—
Percentages of engagements effected through Employment Exchanges.



In area of Exchange at which claimant was registered.
In area of some other Exchange.
All areas.



With former employer.
With new employer.
Total.
With former employer.
With new employer.
Total.
With former employer.
With new employer.
Total.




Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


Men
…
12.7
30.4
23.5
4.8
12.4
9.9
10.5
24.3
19.2


Women
…
13.7
49.9
35.2
7.6
28.7
22.1
12.0
42.4
31.0


Total
…
12.8
32.6
24.9
5.1
14.4
11.4
10.6
26.4
20.4

In the above table the former employer means the employer with whom the applicant was last employed.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. MANDER: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that cases have arisen where claims for benefit of persons who have been unemployed for periods of

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is necessarily long, and includes a tabular statement, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total number of vacancies notified to the Employment Exchanges during the period from the 31st December, 1929, to the 24th March, 1930, was 414,119. During the same period, the Exchanges filled 370,356, or approximately 90 per cent. These figures include placings of all kinds—that is to say, juveniles as well as adults, claimants and non-claimants. They include also placings in non-insured occupations as well as those in insured occupations.

Statistics are not available with regard to the total number of labour engagements. The machinery of unemployment insurance does, however, enable an approximate record to be obtained of the number of engagements in insured work of adult claimants for unemployment benefit registered as wholly unemployed. The following table shows for the period from 31st December, 1929, to 24th March, 1930, the proportion of such engagements effected through the Employment Exchanges.

over two years have been disallowed on the ground of their not being normally engaged in insurable employment; and whether this action is in accordance with instructions issued by her?

Miss BONDFIELD: Length of unemployment is not in itself a disqualification for benefit, but is one of the considerations taken into account by the statutory authorities in deciding individual claims. I have no power to issue instructions to those authorities, and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. MANDER: Is it a fact that something like 400,000 are covered?

Mr. OLIVER BALDWIN: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that certain men on relief work in the Dudley area who pay unemployment insurance contributions during that employment are refused benefit when their work ceases; and what is the reason for such refusal?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOANS).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour the total loan commitments of the different local authorities of the country which have been incurred in connection with schemes for the relief of unemployment and for which State assistance has been received?

Miss BONDFIELD: Since 1st June, 1929, loans have been sanctioned by the Ministry of Health in respect of expenditure on approved schemes of work for the relief of unemployment to the total of £31,190,968. In addition schemes have been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee of an estimated total cost of £1,155,960, the loan sanctions in respect of which have still to be determined.

—
Wholly Unemployed.
Temporarily Stopped.
Total.


Men 18–64
…
…
…
20,571
40,688
61,259


Boys 16–17
…
…
…
664
2,244
2,908


Women 18–64
…
…
…
55,985
79,229
135,214


Girls 16–17
…
…
…
1,230
4,154
5,384


Total
…
…
…
78,450
126,315
204,765


* Includes the counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, Cumberland, Westmorland and the New Mills and Glossop districts of Derbyshire.

Colonel ASHLEY: Can the Minister say, roughly, what resources have been found available by the local authorities?

Miss BONDFIELD: Not without notice.

Captain CROOKSHANK: How does the Minister account for the fact that, in spite of this enormous programme, the number of unemployed has gone up by nearly 700,000?

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. T. SMITH: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women, respectively, unemployed in the cotton industry in Lancashire on the latest available date?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I will, however, read the totals only, namely:
Wholly unemployed, 78,450; temporarily stopped, 126,315; total, 204,765.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Has the Minister any information to suggest that this unemployment has been accentuated because of the delay in connection with the cotton inquiry report?

Miss BONDFIELD: The hon. Member knows that active steps are being taken to deal with that matter.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the Minister aware of the fact that some of these women will never get back into the cotton industry, and will she take steps to find them some alternative work?

Following is the statement:

Insured persons aged 16–64 classified as belonging to the cotton textile industry recorded as unemployed in the North-Western Division* at 26th May, 1930.

STEEL TRADE.

Mr. WALKER: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the unemployment in the steel trades, he will cause to be revised the loan periods for steel pipes with a view to establishing an equality with iron pipes?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): This subject has been fully considered on several occasions. I am anxious to do what I can to help the steel trade, but the evidence available does not indicate that the life of steel pipes for the works of local authorities would generally be so long as that of cast-iron pipes, and the same loan periods would, therefore, not be justified. I am quite prepared to consider any further definite evidence.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was anxious to consider the position of the steel trade. Will he take into account the fact that 93,000,000 tons of iron and steel were imported from abroad last year?

SCOTLAND.

Major COLVILLE: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour in which areas in Scotland the number of persons unemployed has decreased since the present Government took office?

Miss BONDFIELD: In the following areas in Scotland, the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges was lower at 16th June, 1930, than at the corresponding date last year, namely: Arbroath, Kirkintilloch, Wick, Auchtermuchty, Broxburn, Cullen, Gran-town-on-Spey, Kinross, Loanhead, Musselburgh and Troon.

BENEFIT (POOR LAW RECIPIENTS).

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: 51.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief who are also drawing unemployment benefit on the last date upon which he has information?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Returns containing the specific information asked for by the hon. Member have not been obtained by my Department since the 23rd March, 1929. On that date 7,785 persons in receipt of Poor Law relief were also drawing unemployment benefit.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman get a later return?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am prepared to consider that, but, owing to the heavy responsibilities of local authorities, I am rather reluctant at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (KING'S ROLL).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of employers, and what number of ex-Service men employed by them, were on the King's Roll on 31st December, 1928 and 1929, and on 1st June, 1930, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of employers enrolled on the King's National Roll in December, 1928, was 27,232; in December, 1929, 26,709; and in March, 1930, 26,641. The numbers of disabled ex-Service men employed by those firms at the corresponding dates were 382,290, 375,326 and 375,173. The figures for June, 1930, are not yet available.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Lady say that when employment is found preference is given to ex-Service men?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think that these figures show that the King's Roll Committee have done extraordinarily good work and that they are continuing in that work and will continue to deal with the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

CLERICAL EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour how many aliens were permitted to enter this country during each of the first six months of this year for the purpose of taking up clerical employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of aliens admitted to this country in each of the first five months of 1930 for clerical occupations of all kinds, including those admitted as students, visitors, etc., but subsequently permitted to accept such employment, was as follows:


January
…
…
…
124


February
…
…
…
101


March
…
…
…
102


April
…
…
…
97


May
…
…
…
136


Most of the above were young persons occupying supernumerary posts for limited periods (not usually exceeding 12 months) in order to obtain some knowledge of the English language and British business methods.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that she has the requisite means at her disposal to prevent unnecessary competition in an already overstaffed profesion?

Mr. TOOLE: Has my right hon. Friend any figures concerning the number of Britishers who have gone to other countries during that period?

Miss BONDFIELD: I was going to say that this is a double-edged weapon. We take all reasonable steps to prevent unfair competition.

DOMESTIC SERVANTS.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has any record of the number of foreign domestic servants employed in this country; and, if so, what is the number and what are the nationalities of such servants?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir. Such figures are only obtainable from the Census, the latest of which, of course, relate to 1921.

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour what are the Regulations under which foreign girls are admitted to this country for the purpose of engaging in domestic service; and for what period of time are they allowed to remain?

Miss BONDFIELD: In reply to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to Command Paper 3318, which sets out the procedure regulating the entry of foreigners for employment, including domestic service, in Great Britain. Permits are not usually issued for a longer period than 12 months, but they may be renewed at the end of that period.

NATURALISATION.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 33 and 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) the total number of certificates of British naturalisation
issued by him to aliens from all European countries during the past 12 months;
(2) the number of certificates of British naturalisation issued by him to aliens of Russian nationality during the past 12 months?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I would refer the right hon. Member to the last annual published Return which relates to the year 1929 and shows on page 54 that 804 certificates were issued to aliens from European countries of whom 422 were from Russia.

Mr. HACKING: When will the hon. Member have more recent data?

Mr. SHORT: Perhaps the right hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say in what way these people will find work?

Mr. SHORT: No one can take employment in this country without the permission of the Minister of Labour.

Mr. HACKING: If they are British subjects, they can.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS ACT.

INSPECTORS.

Mr. MANDER: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of inspectors under the Trade Boards Act; the number added since the present Government took office; and to what extent arrears in the investigation of complaints exist at the present time?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of inspectors now is 78 of whom 12 have been appointed since the present Government took office. The number of complaints outstanding at the end of April last was 248, but these do not constitute arrears.

Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Lady consider that there is now a sufficient number of inspectors to deal with all the work?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, for the time being.

CATERING TRADE.

Mr. MANDER: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will give particulars as to the number of persons likely to be covered by the proposed trade board in the catering trade; and if she will state the present position and when the board is likely to be formed and commence operations?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement upon these matters made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry in reply to him in the debate of the 18th June. I am not in a position to add to this statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES).

Mr. T. SMITH: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of collieries where stoppage of work has taken place during the last 12 months owing to industrial disputes; and how many of these stoppages were due to the employers seeking reductions of wages?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of disputes reported to the Ministry of Labour as having resulted in stoppages of work at collieries in the 12 months ended 31st May, 1930, was 167; I am unable to state the number of collieries affected by these disputes. Of the 167 stoppages, those which could be definitely classified, on the basis of the available information, as arising out of proposed reductions in wages, numbered 21.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY (WAGES).

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour what percentage the average wage of French iron and steel workers bears to the average wage of British iron and steel workers?

Miss BONDFIELD: The average weekly earnings of workpeople in the iron and steel industry in Great Britain in March last, according to statistics issued by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers were 62s. 4d. In the report published to-day of the delegation on the industrial conditions in the iron and steel industry in certain
countries of the Continent the average weekly earnings of workpeople in the iron and steel industry in France at the beginning of this year are given as 37s.

Major THOMAS: Can the right hon. Lady say whether the Government will take any steps to deal with the importation of an article which is produced under conditions such as these?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has any information relative to the prospective supply of and demand for juvenile labour; and whether any steps are in contemplation for the purpose of adjusting the relation between supply and demand?

Miss BONDFIELD: Some information on this subject was laid before Parliament in Command Paper 3327 in May, 1929. In order to obtain further information and advice on the matter, I have asked the National Advisory Councils for Juvenile Employment to consider the prospective supply of and demand for juvenile labour and advise as to any measures which should be taken for the purpose of adjusting the relation between the supply and demand.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour how many pamphlets have been issued to date for the guidance of persons concerned in advising boys and girls leaving secondary schools on the choice of a suitable career; what has been the total circulation; what careers have been dealt with; and what pamphlets are in preparation?

Miss BONDFIELD: Eight pamphlets within the "Choice of Career" series have been issued to date on the following professions and occupations:

1. Chemistry and Physics.
2. Pharmacy.
3. Veterinary Surgery.
4. Surveying, Land and Estate Agency and Auctioneering.
4a. House Property Management for Women.
5. Architecture.
6. Accountancy.
7. Laundry Management.
Copies of each of these pamphlets have been sent gratis to local committees for juvenile employment, local authorities for higher education, heads of recognised secondary schools, university appointments boards, etc., to the approximate number of 3,300. Public sales, etc., have totalled approximately 12,500 copies.
In one instance the Employers' Federation concerned has distributed a copy of the pamphlet with each copy of its official trade publication, while in others the professional body has purchased copies for the members of its council. Pamphlets on Navigating Officers in the Merchant Navy and on Domestic Science will, it is hoped, be issued within the next two or three weeks. Other pamphlets in actual preparation are on "Commercial Appointments"; the Civil Services at home and overseas; Local Government Services and Public Statutory Bodies; and Librarianship.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PENSIONERS (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. TOOLE: 29.
asked the Home Secretary if he has any figures showing how many retired and pensioned policemen are at present engaged in remunerative employment; how many are still engaged in the police service in England and Wales who are eligible for retirement on pension; and what is their rank?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon Friend has no available information as to the nature of the present posts held by police pensioners, nor can he say how many men qualified by length of service to retire on pension are at present employed in the county and borough police; but in the Metropolitan Police there were on 23rd instant 32 superintendents, 123 inspectors, 54 sergeants and 90 constables so qualified.

Mr. TOOLE: Does the Under-Secretary think that compulsory retirement would be some small solution of the unemployment problem? In view of the fact that he has not the information, am I to take the answer to indicate that he cannot get the information?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLOURED SEAMEN (REGISTRATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now examined further into the successful system of registration of seamen at Antwerp and other ports; whether he has considered applying some similar scheme for the registration of coloured and alien seamen in this country; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with the bad social conditions that exist in certain seaports in this country and the undesirable results, as a consequence, of the establishment of colonies of coloured seamen in those ports?

Mr. SHORT: Yes, Sir, and my right hon. Friend is greatly obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for the report which he has furnished. The question is largely one of the registration of seamen (British and other) in connection with their signing on as part of crews, and falls within the sphere of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who, I understand, has the whole matter under consideration. So far as concerns alien seamen, I would refer to the replies to several recent questions and particularly to that of the 21st March last in answer to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him if he is aware of the fact that on the 5th June last a committee representing the shipowners and the National Union of Firemen came to an agreement on this subject, and will he see that this matter is hastened?

Mr. SHORT: That is a matter which will be dealt with by the Board of Trade.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It requires to be dealt with by others as well as the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEXUAL OFFENCES.

Viscountess ASTOR: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the figures in the criminal statistics recently issued by his Department showing the increase in the number of sexual offences against young persons during recent years, he will consider the introduction of legislation to
give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee of inquiry into offences against young persons by amendments to the Criminal Law Amendment Acts and the Children Act?

Mr. SHORT: As my right hon. Friend said in reply to the hon. Member on 15th May, the recommendations will be borne in mind when time can be found for the Children Bill, but he cannot promise that it will be possible to give effect to all the recommendations.

Viscountess ASTOR: Considering that this Committee was set up in 1924 to look into things, that two Governments have dealt with the matter, and that it is an agreed Measure, could he not get an agreed Measure through the House? Seeing that these cases against children are increasing, does the hon. Member not think that it is his duty to bring forward some legislation?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has the matter under consideration, but, having regard to the pressure of business, it is most difficult to get this question on to the Floor of the House of Commons.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Member think that if he brought in a one-Clause Bill he could get the whole House to pass it willingly in one afternoon?

Oral Answers to Questions — RACECOURSE BETTING (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. EDE: 36.
asked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions for welshing have been undertaken arising out of races on Epsom Downs in 1928, 1929 and 1930, respectively?

Mr. SHORT: The numbers of prosecutions for welshing in connection with races on Epsom Downs were: in 1928, 4; in 1929, 2; and in 1930, to date, 11.

Mr. EDE: Will the hon. Member ask those officers responsible for supervising these prosecutions if they can give him any reasons for the sudden increase this year, seeing that the favourite did not win?

Mr. TOOLE: Is it not the case that most of the people who are welshers are Conservatives?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true——

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SHORT: I must ask the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to put that question on the Order Paper.

Mr. DAY: Is not the totalisator the cause of a lot of it?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.

Mr. FOOT: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children in England and Wales under the age of 14 for whom, owing to their blindnes or other physical disability, no educational provision is at present being made?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): The returns furnished by local authorities show that, on the 31st December, 1929, the number of blind children in England and Wales, under the age of 16, not attending any school or institution was 557, that the corresponding number of deaf children was 305, and of cripples 5,461. The returns do not show how many of these children were under the age of 14. It must not be inferred that there is a need for further special school provision to the extent indicated by these figures, as they include some children under the age of compulsory school attendance and some children prevented by temporary difficulties from attending special schools.

Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman satsified that the number of these children deprived of education is being satisfactorily reduced year by year?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am satisfied tha the position is getting better and that there is no special need for increased accommodation.

SECONDARY AND TECHNICAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many free places in municipal secondary and technical schools available from the ages of 11 or 12 or earlier have been won by children attending Catholic non-provided elementary schools during the last five years?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I regret that I cannot give the desired information as the Board's records do not distinguish between the various types of public elementary schools attended by pupils to whom free places have been awarded.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: May I ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will circularise local authorities who do possess this information and who would in response to his invitation give it to him?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I doubt very much whether it would be worth while.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: May I ask that the information might be obtained. I look upon it as very important. It bears upon a matter of public policy.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I will consider the matter and see whether it is possible to circularise one or two local authorities.

Mr. EDE: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many rate-aided secondary schools have a Church of England, Roman Catholic, other denominational, and undenominational foundation, respectively?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I feel some doubt as to the precise nature of the information which any hon. Friend desires, and I am, therefore, communicating with him on the matter.

EXPENDITURE.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education the total additional expenditure on elementary education contemplated by the 201 local education authorities who have sent in their complete programmes for the years 1930 to 1931; and the total capital or loan-charge expenditure contemplated by their programmes on the provision or improvement of elementary school accommodation for purposes of reorganisation?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I assume that the Noble Lady refers to the programmes for the three years 1930–33. I am having a table prepared on the basis of the programmes which have already been received, and shall be glad to send it to the Noble Lady as soon as it is available. I am afraid it will not be practicable to analyse the expenditure incurred on
educational developments and improvements in such a way as to show what proportion is attributable to reorganisation.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his estimate of £2,500,000 as the cost of schooling the new age group of children over 14 includes a share of the total cost of reorganisation proportionate to the number of these children and to their special needs; and, if not, whether he will state the cost of such a proportionate share?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The estimate of £2,500,000 includes provision for the accommodation and equipment suitable for older children but, subject to this, it is not possible to relate this estimate to the total cost of reorganisation.

STAFFING.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education to which areas the figures of additional teachers estimated to be required after 1st April, 1931, refer?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The estimates of the number of teachers likely to be required after 1st April, 1931, which I gave in my speech on the Second Reading of the Education Bill, were for the country as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (HEALTH PRESCRIPTIONS AND RELIEF VOUCHERS).

Mr. ALBERY: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to change the regulation prohibiting the payment of co-operative dividends on National Health Insurance prescriptions?

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 49.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the recent Co-operative Congress protesting against the continuance of the regulations of the Ministry of Health prohibiting the payment of co-operative dividend on National Health Insurance prescriptions; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have not received any resolution from the recent Co-operative Congress on this subject,
but I am aware of the discussion which took place; and the matter is continuing to engage my attention.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware not only of the discussions but of the condemnation of himself, and is he not going to do something in the matter to help these poor co-operative societies?

Mr. ALBERY: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take any action to enable co-operative dividends to be drawn on vouchers issued by public assistance committees?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir Wood) on the 15th May, the matter is not one in which action on my part arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. HACKING: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet reached a decision regarding the publication of the report in connection with the Government inquiry into the cotton industry?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The report will be presented to Parliament and copies will be available on Friday, 4th July.

Mr. HACKING: Will there be a summary of evidence included in the publication?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think not. Just the report itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA.

Mr. FOOT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if it is intended that the Measure for the suspension of the Constitution in Malta shall receive the sanction of the British Parliament; and, if so, if he will state when the opinion of this House will be taken?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Owing to the urgency of the matter it was necessary to act without delay. The requisite legislation was enacted by His Majesty in Council this morning. It will become operative on proclamation by the Governor in Malta.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister for how long it is proposed to suspend the constitution in Malta?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is not possible at present to give any forecast of how long the suspension will be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir K. WOOD: 52.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons who since June last have been refused their application for an old age pension?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 20,747 applications for old age pensions have been rejected during the year ended 19th June, 1930.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to mention these figures having regard to the pledges he gave at the last General Election?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Not when I compare the very large number of persons who have been accepted.

Viscountess ASTOR: Are there any necessitous widows among that number?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understood the argument of the hon. Lady was that I was giving pensions to necessitous widows.

Viscountess ASTOR: The right hon. Gentleman promised them to all necessitous widows.

Miss LEE: Since hon. Members opposite are so sympathetic, will the Minister of Health give them an opportunity now of voting for what they refused to vote for during the last five years?

Viscountess ASTOR: We never promised it.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual cost of a permanent scheme of pensions for industrial workers of 60 and over, not restricted to those who attain that age before a particular date, if the rate of pension were £1 a week for single persons and 30s. a week for married men?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I assume that this question refers to a scheme of pensions conditional on retirement from work. In
relation to a permanent scheme the term "industrial workers" would obviously have to include agricultural workers, while the large and varied class of persons in domestic employment would have a strong claim for consideration. Excluding this latter class, however, and assuming that pensioners of 65 and upwards who are available for work, but have not recently had a substantial amount of employment could also be excluded, it is estimated, on very moderate assumptions as to the number of persons who would accept the conditions, that the addition to the present cost of pensions would be about £26,000,000 in the first year rising in 10 years to £43,000,000 and in 20 years to over £50,000,000.

Mr. MALONE: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated annual cost of increasing old age pensions at 65 from 10s. to £1 per week, assuming that the whole cost was borne by the Government?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: If the contributory old age pensions at 65 were doubled they would have to be continued at the increased rate after the recipients attained the age of 70, and it would accordingly be necessary to make a corresponding increase in the pensions of all persons now over 70 who have a right based upon insurance. Widows' pensions would also have to be doubled at 65 since the widow of an insured man could not be paid a smaller pension than a wife of the same age. It is estimated that the cost in the first year would be about £42 millions and that in 10 years it would approach £60 millions.

Miss LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter his sympathetic consideration, in view of the fact that many of these old age pensioners must apply for parish relief, and there would be a saving on the rates if the money was provided from national taxation?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have, of course, the greatest sympathy with everyone who is in a position of need, but in my official position I have other things to take into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SUBSIDY.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in order to reduce the present housing shortage, he is prepared to consider the question of extending the present housing subsidy to owners of small plots of ground in order to enable them to build houses thereon for their own occupation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The suggestion made by my hon. Friend is one which would require legislation, and I am afraid that I cannot see my way to introduce such legislation.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman find time to tack it on to his present Housing Bill?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 55.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses in respect of whose construction the subsidy has been granted during the last 12 months, and the corresponding total for the previous 12 months?

Mr. GREENWOOD: During the 12 months ended 31st May, 1930, the number of completed houses ranking for subsidy was 99,124. The corresponding number during the previous 12 months was 107,439. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that subsidy under the Act of 1923 was payable only in respect of houses completed during the first four months of the first-named period.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great extent to which housing is being held up owing to the delay in producing his scheme?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope there will be no delay in completing the present Housing Bill. Indeed, we are continuing the discussion upon it this afternoon.

Sir K. WOOD: Why was there nine months' delay in introducing it?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman promised this reduction in his election address?

HARWICH (TOWN-PLANNING SCHEME).

Mr. MATTERS: 57.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the town-planning scheme of the borough of Harwich, designed to deal with local unemployment, has failed to receive the ap-
proval of the Essex County Council; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The town-planning scheme of the town council does not as such require the approval of the county council. My hon. Friend may have in mind some particular proposal in correction with the scheme, and I am making inquiries.

Mr. PYBUS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question is the result of a circular letter of a party interested in the land in the district, and, in making inquiries, will he consult the Member for the district, who might give him some information?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I shall be very glad to consult the hon. Member or anyone else.

RENT AND OWNERS' RATES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. DICKSON: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what would be the rent if owners' rates are added to and included in the rental of a house which otherwise would be let at £20 in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Govan, Hamilton, and Blantyre, respectively?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The amount payable in each of the areas mentioned as rent and owners rates in respect of a house assessed on £20 per annum for the year 1929–30 is as follows:



Rent including Owners Assessment.



£
s.
d.


Edinburgh
23
2
1


Glasgow
26
1
7


Govan
26
4
3


Hamilton
27
7
8


Blantyre (Landward Area)
31
7
6

ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY, PADDINGTON.

Miss RATHBONE: 96.
asked the hon. Member for Carlisle as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether his attention has been drawn to the conditions of insanitation and overcrowding
as revealed by the reports of the medical officer of the borough of Paddington, in certain properties in that borough owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and whether the Commissioners are taking any steps to put their property into the same condition of repair as some other properties under their direct control?

Mr. G. MIDDLETON (Ecclesiastical Commissioner): The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have not been notified of any report of the Medical Officer of the Borough of Paddington. If they receive notification, they will carefully consider what obligations may be imposed upon them by the facts disclosed.

Miss RATHBONE: In view of the fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are exempted from Income Tax on the ground that their work is of a charitable nature, will the hon. Member say if they consider that the properties in question are in a satisfactory condition?

Mr. MIDDLETON: I do not think that that question arises out of the answer which I have just given, but, if the hon. Lady puts down another question, I will do my best to get the information.

Mr. MILLS: Is my hon. Friend aware that this property is notorious in Paddington?

Mr. THURTLE: Will my hon. Friend say if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners put sanitary conditions before profits?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL RATES (DEMAND NOTES).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of suggesting to local authorities that they should place on the demand notes for rates not merely how the rate is made up but also the total loan indebtedness of the authorities?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The statutory provisions governing the form and content of rate demand notes are intended to secure an analysis of the rate by reference to the cost of individual services, and information as to the total loan indebtedness of a local authority would hardly come within the scope of those provisions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDWIVES ACTS (LEAMINGTON).

Captain EDEN: 58.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state his reasons for refusing to make an order under Section 62 of the Local Government Act, 1929, directing that the Borough Council of Leamington shall become the local supervising authority for the district under the Midwives Acts, 1902 to 1926?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already informed the borough council that I do not consider it desirable that a separate organisation should be set up for the supervision of midwives in an area in which the number of practising midwives is so small as in this case.

Captain EDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision is very strongly resented by the local authority? Where in the Act does the right hon. Gentleman find the words on which he bases his decision?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have not the words of the Act by me, but I think it was clearly contemplated by the late Government that the power should be given only to an area where there was a sufficient number of midwives to justify a separate organisation.

Sir K. WOOD: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to follow the late Government?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I did not say that, but I must administer the law as it stands.

Captain EDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the local authority is not capable of exercising the powers? Since these words do not occur in the Act, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As a matter of fact, it really is a question of local efficiency, and where the number of midwives in an area is very small it clearly is advantageous that the administration of the Act should be in the hands of the larger authority.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the maternal mortality high in that district?

Oral Answers to Questions — SMOKE ABATEMENT.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 61.
asked the Minister of Health what number of
local authorities have adopted by-laws on the subject of smoke abatement; what number have no by-laws; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to extend the adoption of such by-laws?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 116 local authorities have made by-laws. Although this leaves 1,652 without by-laws, the districts without by-laws are largely those where few or no manufacturing processes are found, and many of them are rural. In view of this, and of the powers of proceeding for proved nuisance even without by-laws, I do not think it necessary at present to exercise the power given me by the Act of 1926 of forcing local authorities to make by-laws.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this question of smoke abatement is of very vital interest to the public health, and will be not try to ginger up the local authorities so that they do a little more than they have done?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am very anxious to encourage local authorities, but the process of gingering up is one to which there is a limit.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman use the powers that he has in that direction?

Oral Answers to Questions — STAMP DUTIES (VOUCHERS).

Mr. DAY: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes altering existing legislation so that all vouchers given to persons in acknowledgment of payments for sums over £2 shall bear a 2d. stamp?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Vouchers given in acknowledgment of payments of £2 or more are required by the existing law to bear a 2d. stamp.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 63 and 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) why, as in the case of other companies, Income Tax was not charged on the £1,500,000 written off by the co-operative societies as excess depreciation in 1928; what is the amount of excess depreciation deducted annually by these
societies during the years 1914 to 1929, inclusive; and what is the total amount of Income Tax that would have accrued to the State if these societies had been assessed as ordinary trading companies;
(2) whether the increase in the reserve funds of the co-operative societies in 1928, amounting, according to the Co-operative Annual Congress Report to £3,140,799 (from £20,157,306 to £23,298,135), was assessed for Income Tax; and, if not, for what reason?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Member will find in Section 39 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, the exemption from Income Tax Schedules C and D in favour of co-operative societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893. With regard to the second and third parts of his first question, I can add nothing to the statement furnished in reply to the hon. and gallant Member's question of the 8th May last in which a full computation was given of the additional tax that would be payable if the societies were assessed as suggested by him.

Sir A. KNOX: Why is there this differentiation between the co-operative societies and companies as regards the taxation of reserves?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have directed the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the fact that all this is regulated under the Act of 1918.

UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the amounts payable by local authorities in respect of Income Tax on annual sums granted by the Unemployment Grants Committee in assistance of revenue-producing undertakings will consist solely of sums which will have been deducted by the local authorities from payments made by them to stockholders or other lenders?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: This will be so in most cases, for these grants are generally made in aid of interest on loans. But it will not be so where the grant is made for other purposes, as for instance in aid of wages or interest paid to a bank. In such cases the expenditure met out of the grant cannot properly be regarded as having been defrayed out of the funds of the under-
taking, and therefore cannot be allowed as a deduction in the computation of profits.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (IMPORTS).

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the latest available figures of film imports and, particularly, the denomination, quality, and value of sound-film projectors imported from foreign countries?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The imports of cinematograph films liable to duty as such for the first five months of 1930 were 37,638,945 linear feet of a value of £367,306. There are no separate particulars available of importation of sound film projectors.

Mr. KNIGHT: In view of the very large increase in this form of importation in recent months, cannot these figures be obtained?

Mr. SNOWDEN: This question has been answered by me although it is more a question for the Department of the Board of Trade.

Mr. KNIGHT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a similar return was furnished by his predecessor in 1926? That is why I addressed the question to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. LAWTHER: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the basis upon which scholarships are granted to the sons and daughters of agricultural workmen and the test applied in the selection of the successful students?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The scholars in question are selected by a Central Scholarships Committee on the qualifications, both general and educational, of eligible candidates as revealed, first by a careful examination of the information available concerning each candidate and then by interviews with a selected number. There is no examination test apart from the interview.

Mr. GRANVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give full publicity to that statement in the rural areas of the country?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes. I have given the greatest possible publicity to it, but, if the hon. Member can suggest any useful way of making it more widely known, I shall be glad to consider it.

ARABLE ACREAGE.

Mr. DALLAS: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how much arable land in

Year.
Arable Land.
Increase or Decrease.
Permanent Grass.
Increase or Decrease.
*Rough Grazings in Sole Occupation.
Increase or Decrease.



Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.


1924
10,928,673
—
14,948,124
—
3,861,592
—


1925
10,682,053
-246,620
15,073,433
+125,309
3,920,400
+ 58,808


1926
10,547,925
-134,128
15,128,186
+ 54,753
3,939,155
+ 18,755


1927
10,310,087
-237,838
15,280,243
+152,057
3,996,585
+ 57,430


1928
10,108,745
-201,342
15,396,507
+116,264
4,047,917
+ 51,332


1929
9,947,758
-160,987
15,489,921
+ 93,414
4,083,457
+ 35,540


Increase or decrease between 1924 and 1929.
—
-980,915
—
+541,797
—
+221,865


* Excluding Common Rough Grazings.

EDUCATION.

Mr. DALLAS: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider schemes for the development of the general and agricultural education of adult workers in agriculture on the lines of the Danish high schools?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir. A scheme of this nature is already under consideration.

SMALL HOLDINGS, SOMERSET.

Mr. GOULD: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the number of applicants for small holdings and the number of holdings provided in the county of Somerset for the last three years?

Dr. ADDISON: The numbers of applications for small holdings or cottage holdings received by the Somerset County Council were 69 in 1927, 103 in 1928 and 57 in 1929. The numbers actually provided with holdings, have been 25 in 1927, 71 in 1928 and 49 in 1929.

England and Wales has gone down to grass during each of the last five years?

Dr. ADDISON: As the reply consists of a number of figures, I propose with the permission of my hon. Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
While I am unable to say how much arable land has been laid down to grass, the following statement shows the changes in the area of arable land, permanent grass and rough grazings in each of the last five years.

Following is the reply:

Mr. GOULD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to meet the demand or to assist the county councils to meet the demand?

Dr. ADDISON: A few days ago I circularised the county councils making various suggestions as to how this might be done.

Mr. ALPASS: In the issue of these instructions, will not the county councils be advised to see that the rents charged to smallholders are somewhat more comparable with the rents paid by agricultural tenants?

Dr. ADDISON: I will consider that point.

COTTAGE HOLDINGS.

Mr. GOULD: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can furnish any estimate of the demand that would arise for cottage holdings if these were provided on a letting basis instead of on a selling basis and were eligible for occupation by town workers?

Dr. ADDISON: No data exist on which to base an estimate of the demand that would arise in the circumstances mentioned, but it is reasonable to assume it would be very considerable.

Mr. GOULD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of collaborating with the Ministry of Labour to find out how many are now on the exchange register who would care to participate in such an occupation, and to see that facilities are provided?

Dr. ADDISON: I shall consider that matter.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. GOULD: 79.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many agricultural workers in England and Wales have left the land during each of the last five years?

Dr. ADDISON: As the reply consists of a number of figures, I propose, with the permission of my hon. Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the Government have no agricultural policy this will continue more and more?

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider getting separate figures for Wales in view of the special agricultural conditions in Wales, as compared with England?

Following is the reply:

Reduction in the total number of all classes of agricultural workers as shown in the annual returns collected by the Ministry on the 4th June:


Year.






1925
…
…
…
3,125


1926
…
…
…
8,439


1927
…
…
…
20,450


1928
…
…
…
1,624


1929
…
…
…
2,573

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 83.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received a, resolution from the Devon County Council requesting him to frame a national policy for agriculture capable of immediate application; and how many county councils have forwarded similar resolutions?

Dr. ADDISON: Resolutions on the lines indicated in the hon. and gallant Member's question have been received from 38 county councils, including the Devon County Council.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Are we to understand that the representations made from these very important bodies cannot persuade the Government to do anything for this industry, and that they are simply going to sit still and do nothing?

Dr. ADDISON: No, we do not propose to adopt that line at all.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Am I to understand that the Government propose to do nothing?

Dr. ADDISON: No, I said that they do not propose to adopt the "do nothing" attitude of the hon. and gallant Member's friends.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the last year the Government have done nothing whatever for this industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD WORK.

Mr. MALONE: 86.
asked the Minister of Transport what expansion in the present programme of works assisted from the Road Fund could be undertaken without an increase in motor taxation and without a charge falling on the Exchequer, assuming that the additional programme was financed by means of a loan secured on the revenue of the Fund?

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The prospective resources of the Road Fund are fully committed under the present programmes of works, and indeed it is estimated that the Fund will require to be assisted temporarily by the Exchequer during the next few years. In these circumstances, it will be seen that, apart from any question of policy, it would not be possible to meet the service of a loan without entailing one or other of the results which the hon. and gallant Member has sought to exclude in framing his question.

ROAD GRANTS (CONDITIONS).

Mr. WALKER: 87.
asked the Minister of Transport whether local authorities prohibit the use of foreign steel on grant-aided bridgework?

Mr. C. EDWARDS: I have been asked to reply. It is one of the conditions of grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of works expedited for the relief of unemployment that all materials shall, so far as practicable, be of United Kingdom origin and all manufactured articles of United Kingdom manufacture. Lcoal authorities have also been urged to extend this principle as widely as possible in connection with all expenditure on highways. My hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that this condition is not being complied with in the case of grant-aided bridge works.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is that reply in conformity with the Government's declared policy on Free Trade?

Mr. EDWARDS: I must leave that matter to the Minister.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to assure himself that no foreign steel whatever is used in these bridges; and is he not of the opinion that it is just as absurd to use foreign steel in these bridges as it would be to import foreign labour to do unemployment work?

Mr. EDWARDS: I will convey that remark to my hon. Friend.

Captain GUNSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman also convey it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Oral Answers to Questions — BATHING FACILITIES, LONDON.

Mr. MILLS: 90.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider an extension of the hours of usage of the bathing station at Hyde Park, in view of the large numbers of both sexes engaged in the catering trade and entertainment profession whose leisure hours are between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m.?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I am proposing to arrange an extension of hours, and I hope to make an announcement at an early date.

Mr. MILLS: 91.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the success attending the bathing facilities in Hyde Park, he will consider the construction of bathing pools in the more crowded areas of London where he has administrative powers over open spaces?

Mr. LANSBURY: The construction of bathing pools does not fall within the scope of my Department's functions. This is a matter for the local councils.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 92.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the accidents which have occurred recently to bathers in the Serpentine, he will provide a larger measure of supervision than has hitherto been thought necessary?

Mr. DAY: 93.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any additional police have been detailed for duty during the mixed bathing sessions on the Serpentine, Hyde Park; and will he give particulars?

Mr. LANSBURY: Police duties in the park have been rearranged so as to enable two additional male officers to be on duty at the bathing place in the morning, and two in the evening with a policewoman. As to supervision generally, I am satisfied that the present arrangments are quite adequate.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was a drowning fatality there, which was not found out for several hours; can he give the House any idea of the extent to which first aid has had to be given to people who have been cut with broken bottles and sharp stones; and can he do nothing to have these obstructions removed to make the place more safe?

Mr. LANSBURY: Considering that bathing has been taking place for 200 years in the Serpentine——

Viscountess ASTOR: Not mixed!

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry if the Noble Lady thinks that the fair sex are responsible for the broken bottles. Everything is being done that is necessary, and, if a mischievous person is responsible for a broken bottle, when it is
discovered it will be removed, and, if the person is discovered, he or she will be removed.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the number of people attended to every day for cuts?

Mr. LANSBURY: A very trifling number indeed.

Mr. MILLS: In view of the large numbers of both sexes using this very great privilege, will the First Commissioner state whether in his opinion they are not behaving with as much decency as those of other ranks of society?

Viscountess ASTOR: There are all ranks of society there.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA.

Sir K. WOOD: 95.
asked the Attorney-General whether any proceedings have been taken against the printers and publishers of certain leaflets headed, "We must not murder the workers and peasants of India," and distributed to members of His Majesty's Forces on 27th May last, and in respect of which a person distributing such leaflets has been proceeded against under the Incitement to Mutiny Act?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): No, Sir. No such proceedings have been taken as I do not know who the printers and publishers are. If I obtain this information, I shall certainly prosecute them.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SOLDIER'S DEATH, PESHAWAR.

Mr. O. LEWIS: 97.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the fact that despatch-rider Bryant, of the 1st Armoured Car Company, Royal Tank Corps, was killed by the mob in Peshawar City on 23rd April, when his unit was called out in aid of the civil authorities, and that the deceased man had been the main source of support for his two aged parents, any steps have been taken to obtain compensation for those dependants from those responsible for Bryant's death?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I understand that the Army Council regard the case as one of death attributable to service; in other words, it will be treated in precisely the same way as that of a soldier killed on active service, and the parents will be eligible for pension subject to conditions which are now being investigated.

STATUTORY COMMISSION'S REPORT.

Viscountess ASTOR: 98.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that copies of Volume I of the report of the Indian Statutory Commission were not obtainable in London last week; whether he can now state how many copies were sent for distribution in the United States and in each of the Dominions and Crown Colonies, respectively; and whether any steps have been taken to translate the report into any foreign language?

Mr. BENN: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that there were two days in last week on which copies were not available in London, and that this was due to unavoidable delay in reproducing here one of the maps in the volume of which copies had originally been supplied from India. As regards the second part of the question, apart from official distribution, consignments varying from 85 to 360 copies were sent to the United States of America and to the Dominions, to the sale agents for the Stationery Office, pending receipt of requisitions for any further supply. As regards the third part, the matter is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. O. LEWIS: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that, though the late Clifford Sidney Harvey, of Stanway, Essex, who died on 16th December, 1928, paid contributions as an insured person for 11 years and was insured at the time of his death, his widow has been refused a pension; and whether, seeing that the reason for the pension being refused was because the period of insured employment was interrupted by a space of four years during which the deceased was in
business on his own account, he will exercise his powers under the Act and cause a pension to be granted to the widow?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I have no power to grant a pension under the Contributory Pensions Acts where the statutory conditions for the award of such a pension are not satisfied.

Mr. LEWIS: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mrs. Kathleen Joyce, of 85, Lisle Road, Colchester, the widow of Albert Edward Joyce, who died on 18th May, 1929, has been unable to obtain a pension in respect of their adopted child despite the fact that the said child was christened in the name of Margaret Joyce at the Garrison Catholic Church, Aldershot, some years before her husband died; and whether he will take steps to cause a pension to be granted in this case under the provisions of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have looked into the case to which the hon. Member refers, but I find that the child, Margaret Joyce, was not an adopted child within the meaning of the Adoption of Children Act, 1926. In these circumstances, I have no power to award an allowance in respect of the child.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND VALUATION BILL.

Mr. SIMMONS: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when copies of the Land Valuation Bill will be available to Members?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Prime Minister announced yesterday that this Bill, owing to the pressure of other business, will not be taken. I have had the Bill in print for some time, and propose to consider whether to circulate it for information before the end of the Session.

Sir K. WOOD: Cannot we have a copy of this Bill as a kind of funeral card for the poor victim?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the business for next week?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Monday, Supply, 15th Allotted Day, the Vote will be announced to-morrow; Land Drainage, Money Resolution, Report stage.
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday: Finance Bill, Committee.
The business for Friday will be announced later. On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.

BILLS REPORTED.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ROAD TRAFFIC (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment in respect of a Clause, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), and not amended on re-committal to be considered upon Monday next.

CONSUMERS' COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee D.

Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.

Special Report brought up, and read.

Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Leeds Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1930.

CLASS II.

DOMINIONS OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £39,160, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs."—[NOTE:£19,000 has been voted on account.]

The CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), I want to say that several Members have asked me as to the scope of the discussion on this Estimate. There is nothing for the salary of the Dominions Secretary in this Vote, and the only matters covered are Oversea Settlement and Empire Marketing Board. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to make any statement in relation to certain conferences that are to be held later, he may state the agenda, but there can be no discussion on any part of the agenda which requires legislation.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The Secretary of State for the Dominions said yesterday at Question Time that he expected to-day to be called upon to meet a Motion for the reduction of his salary. That is very far from being our intention. We have no desire to harass or criticise, but rather to encourage, and indeed to congratulate, the right hon. Gentleman upon his accession to the office of Secretary of State for the Dominions. As Minister in charge of unemployment, he did not receive very many bouquets. Indeed, the only flowers which are likely to be offered to a Minister exercising those functions are in memoriam wreaths. Now he has passed to this other Department, I trust that he will be able to win as much distinction in it as he did six years ago when he occupied with universal applause and approval the post of Secretary of State for the Colonies.
The right hon. Gentleman will be called upon at a very early date to take an active part in the Imperial Conference and the Imperial Economic Conference, and there he will have to deal with many questions of Imperial trade. I propose to-day to speak mainly upon these questions of trade in general, with which he will there have to deal, although there will be large numbers of other questions of equal and even greater importance, for any nation which thinks only of trade is not likely to succeed even in trade. But in these days of acute economic depression the question of trade must occupy a leading place in our thoughts, as it will, no doubt, in the thoughts of the conferences that are to be held.
I had hoped to-day, on this Motion for the salary of the Secretary of State, he being about to take a leading part in those conferences, to discuss the general question of Imperial trade, and particularly the proposals which are so strangely named Empire Free Trade, although really proposals for Empire Protection, but I understand from your Ruling that that cannot be done on this occasion. I hope, however, that some future occasion will arise on which the House may discuss these proposals without restriction, for it is most necessary that the views of the House should be expressed, and I am sorry that the Empire Crusaders have so far shown no great eagerness to bring this matter to the Floor of the House. The most satisfactory feature about Empire trade in recent years has been its remarkable growth and development. Lord Passfield told the Colonial Conference two or three days ago that the exports of the Crown Colonies before the War, in 1913–14, were under £100,000,000, and that in the last completed year they had risen to £236,000,000, without, one may mention incidentally, any adventitious aids, but solely owing to the activity, energy, and enterprise of the peoples of those Colonies. In the same period the exports of Canada have doubled and the exports of New Zealand have increased by 50 per cent., and the total trade of our Empire has now reached the enormous total of £3,000,000,000 a year.
A body of which too little is heard, the Imperial Economic Committee, has been at work for some years dealing with
certain aspects of Empire trade under the chairmanship of an old Member of this House, Sir Halford Mackinder, and with Sir David Chadwick as secretary. A few weeks ago it published a very interesting report which showed that in spite of the decline of the trade of this country in relation to the rest of the world, Empire trade as a whole has not only held its own but has slightly increased. Before the War the Empire had rather over 27 per cent. of the trade of the world, and it now has 29 per cent., in spite of the decline in the United Kingdom. That is equal to the whole of the trade of all the countries of Northern and Western Europe put together, and more than double the whole of the trade of the United States. The report mentions that in the last recorded year the merchandise passing between Empire and foreign countries was about three times that passing between Empire countries.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he endeavours at the conference to take whatever administrative steps are possible to increase and develop Imperial trade and communications, will remember at the same time that the trade with the outside world is three times as great, and that, while encouraging and developing the one, he will do nothing to hamper or to restrict the other. He should remember, also, that, while the Empire bought from us in the last recorded year £325,000,000 worth of goods giving employment to an immense number of our workpeople, the rest of the world bought more than £400,000,000 worth of goods. Therefore, whatever measures are taken to develop Empire trade should not restrict or diminish the trade with the 1,400,000,000 of people who live outside the bounds of our Empire. No doubt he will use all his efforts to secure that his policy shall be wholly constructive and in no degree restrictive.
There is a very great deal of work already being done in various directions by different bodies, of which the country is not fully aware, and of which many Members of this House are not aware. There is the admirable new Committee formed by the present Government, and arising out of the Colonial Development Act, which was one of the first Measures passed by this Parliament and which had the support of all parties. The right hon.
Gentleman and his colleagues have put it into active operation. They have appointed a Colonial Development Advisory Committee, which has sanctioned already a large number of projects for the development, agriculturally, industrially and commercially, of the Colonies and mandated territories, and their communications, and not less important, their sanitation. From a report recently presented it appears that up to the end of February projects have been approved involving an expenditure of £5,600,000, to be spread over five years. The charge which will devolve upon the British taxpayer does not, however, approach this sum. Almost the whole amount is being provided by loans or by the expenditure of the territories themselves, with the assistance of certain grants from the British Exchequer largely by way of assistance in the matter of the interest on the loans. The only charge which devolves upon us, and it is spread over a period of five years, is £780,000, and it has been the means of securing the investment, for purposes of development, of a sum approaching £6,000,000. It brings a good deal of employment to many workpeople in this country, in providing many of the commodities needed.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must take satisfaction from these facts, and will probably promote the further prosecution of this work, but I hope that he will not come to Parliament and ask for more money than has already been granted. A charge of £1,000,000 a year may be imposed upon the British taxpayer, which is ample for present needs, and I am only afraid that the excellence of this work may lead to further burdens being placed upon our Budget which would, perhaps, not be fully justified, for, although this country gets a considerable indirect benefit, the direct benefit accrues to the territories concerned, and the financial provision ought to be mainly provided from their awn revenues and resources.
There is another body doing most admirable work in various directions which is better known to the public as a whole, and that is the Empire Marketing Board. The nation usually considers that the work of that Board is mainly devoted to publicity. It is natural that that should be so, because the part of its work which attracts the public eye, from its very
nature, is its publicity work. I am not quite sure that the great expenditure under that head is fully warranted. There has been an expenditure of more than £250,000 upon these posters and other forms of publicity. The posters are admirable artistically, they help to redeem our hoardings from the ugliness that pervades them, but whether they have an economic value equal to the expenditure I am not sure. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) is an active member of the Board, in which he takes the keenest interest, and possibly he may have something to say to the Committee on that point later.
With regard to this measure of publicity I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when he is in conference with the Dominions and Colonies he might inquire whether there might not be some measure of reciprocity. The whole of this expenditure devolves upon the British taxpayer, while the benefit of it is derived not only by British industries but by Dominion and Colonial and Indian industries and the Mandated Territories. We rejoice that this should be so, but in return possibly they might take similar and concurrent action within their own territories, in so far as competition with their own industries is not involved. I do not think they are likely to advertise our goods in competition with their own, but there are a great number of our goods not in competition with their own and which they might assist in that manner.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the proposal that the different Governments should grant money for the purpose of this Vote?

4.0 p.m.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Of course, it rests with them; it does not rest with this Committee. The action must come from them, but, when the whole of the matter is being discussed at these conferences in the autumn, possibly the suggestion might be made that one good turn deserves another. By far the larger work of the Empire Marketing Board does not come before the public in the same manner. They are actively engaged in promoting scientific research in many directions, biological research is among
their activities, and in a score of ways they are bringing science to bear to assist in combating diseases of men, plants and animals in various parts of the Empire and elsewhere, and are making most useful researches. After all, science is the key which unlocks for mankind the storehouse of nature, and the more we can bring science to bear on industrial development the more likely our progress is to be assured.
This highly skilled scientific work must be centralised and put in the hands of the most eminent researchers, and consequently it is pre-eminently a function which devolves on the capital country of the Empire. The National Physical Laboratory, and in a much less degree the Imperial Institute, have been co-operating in this work for some years. There is further the Institute of Tropical Medicine. I was a few days ago at the great exhibition at Antwerp, where the admirable British pavilion, upon which I would congratulate the Secretary for Overseas Trade, is meeting with the approval of all Englishmen in Belgium and of the Belgian people also. In that exhibition one of the most striking exhibits is that of tropical medicine, similar to that which was at Wembley. There Great Britain is taking the lead among the nations, and the work it is doing, for its efficiency and the marvellous results achieved, fills with admiration all those who witness it. I think in this House we ought to express our gratitude to those who in these various ways have been working to promote progress in our Dominions.
There is, further, the British Cotton Association and the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, which now for 20 years, again without any adventitious aids from tariffs, have by investment and enterprise and wise expenditure been developing cotton growing in various parts of the Empire. Twenty years ago the Empire, excluding India, produced 30,000 bales of cotton. Last year it produced 472,000 bales of cotton, a wonderful growth in that period. Lancashire has been able to treble her supplies of cotton compared with what they were before the War, and this might be an example that could be applied in certain other industries. Along somewhat parallel lines there is another way in
which Empire industry might be encouraged and Empire trade developed. It has been stated in a very succinct form by the Federation of British Industries, which has lately prepared an interesting report on some of these questions. They say:
It is essential that individual industries in Great Britain and the Dominions should together explore the possibilities of rationalising their production. … As part of any such scheme of rationalisation steps should be taken to develop a closer technical alliance between the industries of this country and of the Dominions with a view to combined action on such questions as research, standardisation and simplification.
That is a question of great importance, and one to which the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) has referred in some of his speeches. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to say something about this in his reply, because of the interest taken in the endeavour to reorganise and rationalise our industries, not merely on a national, but on an Imperial scale, and to secure that they shall work together as one whole rather than as active competitors against each other. Further, there is the question of communications, which in an Empire like ours, scattered over the continents and the oceans, must hold first place in importance—shipping, ports, docks, railways, cables, wireless and now the very important new means of communication, the air services which are being developed so rapidly, partly under the auspices of the Air Ministry, but mainly through the energy and enterprise of our courageous and skilful airmen and women. Only to-day we hear of the arrival in America of British airmen, and the leader of the expedition, we are glad to think, is an Australian. Only recently the whole country was thrilled with admiration at the exploit of the airwoman who flew alone from here to the Antipodes.
There is the question also of migration. In answer to a question I put in the House the other day, I was told that in the last 10 years there have been 700,000 fewer migrants from this country than in the 10 years before the War. That, of course, has a most important bearing on our problem of unemployment, and if the right bon. Gentleman can do anything to promote the flow of
migrants of suitable types for Dominion conditions—is that out of order?

The CHAIRMAN: I must safeguard the right hon. Gentleman from going too far into it. There is another Vote for Overseas Settlement.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I was only going to refer to it incidentally in passing.

Mr. AMERY: On a point of Order. Is it not within the scope of your Ruling, that inasmuch as the Secretary of State will have to deal with this question of migration at the Imperial Conference, the right hon. Gentleman might go into it to the extent of asking how far the Secretary of State will take up this matter at the Conference. I understand the Secretary of State will only make one speech in reply, and it would be a pity if he could not give us an indication of the attitude that he is going to take up on migration and the Empire Marketing Board, both of which questions we shall discuss on other Estimates.

Sir H. SAMUEL: One or two of my hon. Friends wish to deal with this matter, and it is not one which gives rise to acute controversy like Empire protection.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not a question whether it raises acute controversy or not. I am concerned with the fact that, Estimates are prepared and submitted in order to secure adequate discussion. I cannot allow detailed discussion of the matter, because Overseas Settlement is covered by a Vote in the same group, and all details of the Dominions are there stated.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I must leave it to my hon. Friends to succeed as best they may in putting this point. Lastly, among the things coming under review, there is the Conference of Colonial Governors now sitting. It was initiated three years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), and proved most successful in co-ordinating methods and pooling ideas, and the Conference now sitting is likely to have equally useful results. I have covered a fairly wide field, and I wish to ask the Committee and the Government to view these proposals as one whole and to see that, if all these various matters and measures are taken together,
there emerges a very large, practical and non-controversial policy of Imperial unification and development. It is a profound error to think that there can be no Empire policy except a tariff policy, and the point I wish to press is that those who are interested in Empire questions need not stand aside and adopt a merely negative attitude in face of the vehement campaign which purports to aim at Empire unity and proceeds on other lines. All these bodies, committees and organisations—the Imperial Economic Committee, the Colonial Development Advisory Committee, the Empire Marketing Board, the Cotton Growing Associations, those who are engaged in rationalisation of industries throughout the Empire, those who are concerned with communications and with migration—are working on parallel lines, but perhaps not with sufficient information about each other's efforts nor with sufficient co-ordination of their efforts.
The whole of these matters are brought under one purview once in three years at the Imperial Conference or at the Conference of Colonial Governors. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman the question whether they do not need continuous attention and constant initiative, not only from the British Departments, the Dominion Office and the Colonial Office, together with the India Office when it is concerned, but from some body which contains representatives of the Colonies, Dominions and India. There is need for a new C.I.D., not a Committee of Imperial Defence but a Committee of Imperial Development constituted on much the same lines, a permanent standing body not dealing with great questions of controversial policy but dealing with those very matters with which I have concerned myself this afternoon, containing perhaps amongst its members the chairmen or the representatives of all those different bodies dealing with various aspects of the question. The point which I wish specially to put before the right hon. Gentleman is that when this Conference meets he will take special pains to explore this particular aspect of the question, so that if the Dominions, the Colonies and India concur, some steps may be taken to form a standing body of those authorities such as I have adum-
brated. If that is desired by them I am sure it would be received by this House, not with indifference, and still less with hostility, but with the greatest possible encouragement, and by this means the right hon. Gentleman might be able to signalise his term of office by taking effective practical measures for promoting the development, prosperity and unity, while, at the same time, maintaining the full liberties of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Mr. AMERY: I think I ought to begin by offering my sincere condolences to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) upon the disappointing check which he received by the Chairman's Ruling. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have mounted his powerful artillery in a very dominant and strategical position with the evident intention not only of pouring out a well-directed instructional fire on the Front Bench opposite, but also with the intention of directing a powerful destructive fire on these benches.

Mr. LEIF JONES: It is wholly needed.

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that your Ruling has narrowed the right hon. Gentleman's angle of fire, and has also narrowed my opportunities of replying to his remarks. Consequently, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darden, I shall confine my remarks to the immediate duties of the Dominions Office, and to the task which confronts the Secretary of State for the Dominions at the forthcoming Imperiod Conference. Before doing so I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) upon his appointment, and I also would like to congratulate the Government upon their decision to separate finally the two offices which deal with the Dominions and the Colonies. The division is, however, far more complete than the Prime Minister indicated in his reply the other day. The work of the two offices has been entirely separated during the last five years, and the division of their duties has proved a complete success. The combination of those two offices in one person was undoubtedly a makeshift, and whichever Government came into power after the last Election would have found it necessary to make this change. I do not
think anyone in this House who contemplates, at this moment, the vast amount of work which confronts the Colonial Secretary in East Africa and other Colonies, and at the same time considers the problems which the Secretary of State for the Dominions has to envisage in connection with the constitutional aspects of the Imperial Conference, and the immense field of economic inquiry which he has to cover before the imperial Conference meets, can doubt that this division of offices has come just in time to enable justice to be done to these questions.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State one or two questions about the Imperial Conference itself. I fully realise that a great part of that conference will be taken up considering the report of the conference on legislation which was submitted to the various Governments of the Empire a few weeks ago. That is one of the most momentous documents which has ever been presented to Parliament. It has carried to its logical extremity the liberation of the Dominions from any control of the Imperial Parliament and of the Government of this country. It is a document so farreaching that many Imperialists in this country regard it with the profoundest misgivings. That is not my view. I have always held the view that the unity of the Empire must be based on complete equality and on complete independence of its constituent parts. The process of declaring freedom has now reached a point which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the Empire Press Conference the other day, when the important thing is to turn our minds now to practical measures to secure effective unity, practical co-operation. At the Imperial Conference itself I hope the Secretary of State for the Dominions will throw his whole weight not only in the direction of carrying through what I might call the negative and deliberative conclusions of the previous Imperial Conference and of the conference on legislation, but also the constructive suggestions which have been made to secure the permanent unity of the Crown, effective and reciprocal legislation to secure a common status for British subjects, a common status for British ships, as well as that
unity of shipping legislation which is of such importance to our Empire trade.
In the same way I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to ensure that serious consideration is given to the proposal for setting up of an inter-Imperial tribunal for dealing with any questions of a justiciable character which may arise, and with which the Privy Council in its present form, in view of the attitude towards it of some of the Dominions, is not altogether fitted to cope. At the same time I fully realise that on the constitutional side we are not going to make, at this stage of the Empire's history, very great constructive advances. For more than 30 years it has been plain to anyone who has taken part in Imperial Conferences that, on constitutional issues, and on defence and other kindred issues, the whole tendency of the Dominions was to the separate assertion of their national autonomy. The one aspect in which they have always been ready for closer co-operation and more intimate relations has been on the economic side. It was not a mere hankering after tariffs that forced Mr. Chamberlain to take the attitude which he took 30 years ago. Mr. Chamberlain took up that attitude because he felt that it was only on the economic side that really effective progress could be made towards Imperial unity.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen has consequently rightly laid stress upon the great importance of the Imperial Economic Conference. There are one or two things which I should like to ask the Secretary of State about the composition and the procedure of the Imperial Economic Conference. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that more than once, in recent years, he himself from these benches, as also did the Prime Minister during his first term of office, raised the issue as to whether the Opposition in this House, as well as the Government, ought not to be represented at the Imperial Conference. I felt constrained to reply that there had been very little indication of any enthusiasm for such a proposal on the part of the Dominions. There is also the more serious objection that the Imperial Conference is essentially an executive body dealing with executive policy in regard
to which the responsibility could not be divided, at least in ordinary times. I do not think that those considerations apply to the same extent to the economic conference. I would add the suggestion that if, in the opinion of the present Government, the same objections do not hold good in the case of the Economic Conference, they are by no means compelled to hold their hand until all the other Governments of the Empire have decided to adopt a similar line of action. After all, it is for each Government of the Empire to decide the composition of its own delegation at the Imperial Conference.
I remember that in 1917 Mr. Massey, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, brought with him Sir Joseph Ward, the leader of the Opposition. I agree that while we are divided profoundly in our points of view as to the importance of certain methods applicable to the situation it would not be worth while attempting to bring in all parties where questions of economics are being dealt with. We are, however, living in very difficult times. I do not think anyone can say that the differences which divide us across the Floor of the House, and across the Gangway to-day, will be as deep next October as they are to-day when we shall be face to face with the prospects of the coming winter. What I submit to the Secretary of State is that if it should happen that the force of circumstances brings us closer together in our outlook upon this problem, then the right hon. Gentleman should give serious attention to the possibility that a great departure in British policy at the Imperial Conference should have the unanimous assent of the leading representatives of all parties.
There is another question with regard to the composition of the Conference to which I should like to draw special attention, and that is the question of Colonial representation. The Colonial Empire, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen has pointed out, has grown enormously in importance in recent years. Its export trade, which was £100,000,000 a year just before the War, is not far off £250,000,000 to-day. Both as a source of our raw material and as a market, it ranks second only to India in
the markets of the world. Not only has it grown in economic importance, not only is it likely to grow even more in economic importance, but its political status has, in certain respects, been insensibly changed in recent years. There are, after all, a great many Colonies which enjoy in varying degrees some form of representation, and it is not only in India that the convention has grown up that the economic policy of a great number of our Colonies is governed by public opinion, and by their own representatives, and not by any fiat or decree from this country. The West Indies, for instance, have entered into definite trade agreements or treaties with Canada.
I submit that, with an Empire that has reached that state of importance, it is not enough that it should be represented at the Imperial Economic Conference by an Assistant Under-Secretary of State. Beyond this purely official representation, ways and means ought to be devised by which the more developed Colonies can be directly associated, through representatives of their public opinion and of the elected element or the nominated element in their Legislatures, in these discussions, which are bound to be of such vital importance to themselves. More than that, I would suggest to the Secretary of State, though I do not wish in any sense, Mr. Young, to trespass beyond your Ruling, that there is nothing to-day to prevent the Government of this country, from an economic point of view, entering into direct discussion with at any rate certain Colonies or groups of Colonies, as they would with the Dominions, to see whether some reciprocal agreement may not be arrived at. Let me take the case of the West Indies, Mauritius and the other sugar-producing Colonies. I am not at this moment going to enter into the appalling plight to which they have been reduced by the present state of the sugar market, a condition of things under which, although they produce sugar more cheaply than two-thirds of the world, they cannot sell it without a ruinous loss. Nor am I going to enter into the wisdom or unwisdom of the Government in refusing to give them assistance, either by the means that we on these benches would advocate, or by the means which their own Commissioner, Lord Olivier, suggested.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): You would be out of order if you did.

Mr. AMERY: I am not going to do so, but I suggest that at an Imperial Conference, if the Government are not prepared on their own responsibility to be generous to these dependencies, they are at any rate fully entitled to see whether, out of the need of these dependencies, they might not be able to strike a business bargain of advantage to this country. As a part of that bargain, in one form or another—I am not discussing whether legislative or administrative measures are required—they might give them something for which they would give something in return to this country.
So much for the composition of the Economic Conference. Now may I say something about some of the things which, like my right hon. Friend, I hope to see emerge from that Conference? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, in his closing sentences, laid immense stress on the importance of a further development and consolidation of our rudimentary and inchoate machinery for consultation, consideration and research on the economics of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman, however, is not the only one who is urging this. It is a very significant fact that the preparatory committee of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire have recommended the same thing. They recommend the setting up of what they call a permanent Economic Assembly, which should both study and plan and work out problems of Empire trade, and should also prepare and organise for the periodical meeting of Economic Conferences. That is the proposal made, if I may say so, from the capitalist side; but I gather from to-day's papers that almost identically the same proposal has been put forward in the report which has just been accepted by the Trades Union Council. While they use slightly different terms—they speak of an Imperial Trade Secretariat, where the other body speaks of an Imperial Trade Assembly—they also speak of such a body planning, studying, and preparing for frequent inter-Imperial Conferences.
From both sides, therefore—from the point of view of organised labour, from the point of view of organised capital,
and, I venture to say, from the point of view of all parties in this House—the Secretary of State is being urged to give life and effect to the conception that the time has come when what is done in the Economic Committee at Geneva among the nations of the world should be done among the nations of the British Empire, which have so much more intimate an interest in each other's welfare.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen also dealt with the Empire Marketing Board. There, again, I do not think I should be keeping within your Ruling if I entered in any detail into the work of the Empire Marketing Board, but I must dispel at any rate one misconception under which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen is labouring. He implied that this work of the Empire Marketing Board was work on which we spent money for the benefit of other parts of the Empire without any reciprocal return on their side. That, however, is not the situation at all. At the Imperial Economic Conference in 1923, the Dominions represented to us the very greatly extended advantages to British trade which they had recently been giving, and, as a return for those extensions, we offered to give certain preferences, which afterwards, for reasons into which I need not enter here, were commuted into the spending of £1,000,000 a year to help the marketing of Empire produce in this country. We have no claim, on the basis of reciprocity, to ask the Dominions to do anything, but, at the same time, if they would care to show that they not only reciprocate in other forms, but regard this form of publicity and research work as worth reciprocating, of course we in this House would welcome such action. I might point out that in the field of research there is already a great measure of reciprocity. To a very considerable extent the research grants of the Empire Marketing Board are matched by sums found by Dominion Governments or institutions overseas.
My right hon. Friend was inclined to disparage the publicity expenditure of the Empire Marketing Board, but I think he is very much mistaken if he does that. I believe that that expenditure has had a profound effect upon public opinion in this country, an effect which has been translated into the steady and remark-
able increase of Empire purchases in this country, more particularly of the kind of articles which receive assistance from the publicity work of the Empire Marketing Board. There is, however, another value which is not less important, though it cannot be measured in terms of money or of trade. I said just now that this work of the Empire Marketing Board is reciprocity on our part for what the Dominions have already done for Empire trade, and I can assure the Committee that this publicity work of ours in this country, whatever effect it may have had upon British public opinion, has had an immense effect upon public opinion overseas. Every Dominion visitor who comes over here goes back to his own country to say that the British Government is spending its money on helping him and his fellow citizens, and that has an Imperial value that cannot be measured in terms of money or in terms of immediate trade results. There is yet another value of that publicity on which I should like to say at any rate a word. Every one of these posters not only appears for a few weeks on our hoardings, but appears in a reduced form in our schools. Over 21,000 schools in this country have voluntarily, and without any advertisement or appeal from the Empire Marketing Board, asked for sets of these posters, and I only wish it were possible for me to quote some of the letters received from schoolmasters, and from school-children themselves, to indicate the extent to which this form of what I will call education rather than publicity has been valued and appreciated throughout the schools of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to shipping and to air. I do not think I need dwell upon those subjects, except just to express the hope that this forthcoming Conference, like previous ones, will mark a great advance in the development of Empire air routes. In using that phrase, I should like to draw attention to one fact. Owing to the necessity of Government assistance to aviation, air routes have been developed steadily, so far as long-distance routes are concerned, on Imperial lines, in order to promote inter-Imperial intercourse. Shipping has never been considered from that point of view. Shipping regards itself as a great industry flourishing all over the world, and con-
cerned with developing its interests in every direction. We should be the last to wish to restrict the development of British shipping in any trade of the world, but at the same time it is true to a very considerable extent that that interest of shipping sometimes tends to conflict with the function which shipping fulfils as an inter-Imperial carrier. I could quote, if this were the occasion, many instances where, through the operation of shipping arrangements, cheaper freights are available to our Dominions from foreign ports than from British ports. I submit that the whole question of encouraging British shipping to subserve inter-Imperial trade more than it does at present requires looking into.
Migration is another topic which can be more fully discussed under its own heading. I would only say, in reply to what the right hon. Gentleman said, that, while it is true that migration has been more limited in scope since the War than it was before, that has been due to a great variety of reasons—to much higher costs of transport, to the difficulty of saving the money to meet those costs in this country, and, above all, to the fact that the economic situation in the Dominions, as well as in this country, has been one of difficulty, and that, therefore, there has not been that inducement of hope which is the real prime mover in migration at all times. The right hon. Gentleman said something at the close of his speech about envisaging all these problems as a single whole, and there is no question of which that is more true than of migration. You will never solve the migration question, or make more than very limited progress, even with the admirable machinery that exists at present, until you set the trade of the Empire moving with far greater force and intensity than it is moving to-day. Meanwhile, however, I think it is satisfactory to reflect that, in the 10 years since the War, including the 370,000 and more who have been directly assisted under the Overseas Settlement Act, and the 90,000 who went out under the ex-service scheme before that, something like 460,000 persons have gone out to settle in the Dominions, and most of them have settled successfully. Only a very small fraction of that number would ever have left these shores had it not
been for the schemes of assistance which we set on foot, with the co-operation of the Dominions, after the War.
I should like to put in a plea for the consideration of another very important, though technically difficult problem at the Economic Conference, and that is the question of Empire currency. It was raised in a very interesting speech by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) a few days ago, and it was also raised at the Economic Conference in 1923. It was then side-tracked for the reason, which seemed sufficient at the time, that not only in the Dominions but in this country we were looking forward to an early re-establishment of the gold standard, and believed that that re-establishment would provide a sufficient basis for all inter-Imperial transactions without any dislocation occurring. We did not foresee at that time the extent to which the gold of the world was going to be sucked into the maw of America, or even the extent to which our neighbour, France, would endeavour to build up a new world trading and banking position by the accumulation of an immense stock of gold in Paris. These circumstances have led to a grave shortage of currency. They have, I believe—I do not speak as an expert—played a not inappreciable part in that tremendous fall in prices which has been the beginning of the trade dislocation from which we are suffering at this moment.
In those circumstances it becomes well worth considering whether within the Empire, at any rate, we could not dispense largely with gold for inter-Empire trade purposes and keep our gold mobile for the purposes of external trade. Take the present dislocation of the Australian trade, I believe to a large extent temporary, due to the sudden break in wool prices. If Australia had had enough gold, she could have sent it over here, and trade would have pursued its normal course. In the absence of gold, or any other medium which might take its place, Australia has been forced to adopt emergency measures of the most drastic character which, by restricting our trade with Australia, have aggravated our problems.

Mr. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the present extraordinarily difficult situation in Australia is due to the question of currency?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, to this extent—that I believe if we had had a somewhat different system it might have been much easier to find a way out of that difficulty instead of resorting to measures which not only aggravate our economic situation by restricting trade with Australia, and so narrow our market for Australia, but also add to the cost of production in Australia. If it were possible to do between this country and Australia what this country does with East Africa, with West Africa, with Malaya, with the West Indies, and set up some sort of organisation to keep the currency stable—there is more than one way of doing it—I believe it would help enormously to keep up the flow of inter-Empire trade. If it were possible to set up such a scheme, or if, as an alternative, it were possible to arrange for the issue, by the exchange of Treasury Bills or otherwise, of an Empire bank note, you would have an entirely different situation. These notes would circulate within the Empire and adjust temporary fluctuations without compelling trade to be restricted. Australia might well have contented herself in these conditions, if they had existed, by restricting foreign trade, which requires to be paid for with gold, and allowing Empire trade to be carried on with the help of some such machinery.
There is another matter of very great importance to the Dominions which is bound to arise at the Imperial Conference, if not at the Imperial Economic Conference, and that is the position of trustee stocks. That is a form of preference, which we have given to the Empire since 1901, whose value has been estimated at not much less than £5,000,000 a year to our fellow citizens overseas. That preference has always been accompanied by certain Treasury demands with regard to the legislation of the Dominions which, simple, obvious and natural as it was to impose them 30 years ago, are utterly out of keeping with the present constitutional position of the Empire. The demand is that the Dominion Government concerned should pledge itself that any legislation which it may bring forward that is calculated to affect the value of those securities, shall be subject to veto by this country. That is an impossible position to-day and there is grave danger that the whole of this valuable system, which costs us nothing
and means so much to the Empire, may go by the board. I hope it may be possible at the Imperial Economic Conference to consider whether we cannot accept from the Dominions their own declaration as a sufficient assurance to the British Government that it will admit these securities as trustee stocks; and if by any chance that declaration were dishonoured, the natural remedy would lie, not in a British veto, but in the submission of the issue to some Imperial tribunal such as the one to which I referred just now. I hope that that question, amongst others, will receive from the right hon. Gentleman and from the conference the most careful consideration.
When it comes to other matters that we can do to help the Dominions, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen that we have to approach these questions from every angle and there is no method of dealing with them which we should rule out. We on these benches certainly are not wedded to one remedy alone. We are only too willing to look at every proposal that may help the situation. Indeed, there are many articles where we would readily admit that the method of duties is by no means the best method of approaching the question. It is a matter of widespread agreement that, if you take such a substance as wheat here in this country, the needs of British agriculture have to be met, if they are to be met at all, by some scheme, whether of quota or guarantee or whatever it may be, rather than by the method of imposing a duty. If we come to some such conclusion about wheat in this country, is there any insuperable difficulty in extending, with such modifications as may be necessary, the same process to the wheat of the Empire, including it in whatever quota we may fix or establishing a separate quota, or arranging with each Dominion for the guarantee of a suitable price? There is a method which does not touch on controversial issues. Sugar is another case where, I dare say, the quota method might be just as effective, in developing the sugar Colonies and making the Empire independent in its sugar supplies, as the method of duties. We are not making a fetish of duties. But we are not making a fetish of the negation of duties. That
is not a matter which I need go into further. We fully recognise that the effects of the duties will depend on an immense variety of circumstances. In some circumstances they may add to the cost of an article. [Interruption.] They are not the only taxes which affect the cost of production. That is the only slight side shot that I will allow myself in answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
All these matters require treating as a whole, and I appeal to the Secretary of State to deal with them as a whole and with an absolutely open mind. I would ask him to give an assurance, not only that no methods and no subjects will be barred from discussion at the forthcoming Conference, but that he himself, and his colleagues, will enter into every proposition that may be brought before the Conference with an absolutely free and open mind, prepared to discuss it on its merits in the spirit in which Mr. Dunning, the Finance Minister of Canada, said he was introducing his Budget and coming to the Imperial Conference—a spirit of mutual helpfulness, a spirit of open-mindedness, not tied down by any particular party proposition or any of the issues that divide us. The right hon. Gentleman has had a year during which he has been confronted with the gravest situation that has ever faced this country. He has looked upon that terrible situation, which may well be even graver in prospect when the Autumn comes, from the angle of what it means to industry and the workers of the country. Now, in a new capacity, he will be confronted with what I believe to be an unexampled opportunity, which may perhaps never recur, of finding a truly hopeful solution of that problem. I believe the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, when they are faced both with the magnitude of the problem and the greatness of their opportunity, will not hesitate, but will act with the courage of their convictions.

Mr. THOMAS: I am in somewhat of a difficulty here because for 12 months, either at Question Time or on the Vote for my salary, I have been called upon to explain what "man months" mean, and I cannot very well apply man months to the British Empire. To-day, although my own salary is involved——

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman's salary is not involved. There
is nothing in this Vote for his salary at all.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. THOMAS: I was apprehensive on those occasions as to what the result of the Vote was going to be, and I can afford to be indifferent to it at this moment. Although we are limited in the scope of the debate, it would be a profound mistake for any Minister in my party not to realise that there is existing in the country to-day more anxiety and a deeper feeling and a greater appreciation of the possibilities that are opened out by the Imperial Conference, than probably at any other time in our existence. I welcome that interest. I think it is a good thing that there can be discussions, that there is interest and anxiety in what I would call great Imperial questions. It will be equally a mistake not to realise frankly and fully that the present world economic position and the particular and special position of our country, very naturally make people look for some means of dealing with the situation. Whilst I welcome that interest and whilst I will do all I can to encourage it, I want to point out that in my judgment no greater harm is likely to accrue to real Imperial unity than by creating hopes and anticipations which cold and hard facts can never allow to materialise. In other words I answer the right hon. Gentleman quite frankly by saying again, speaking for myself and the Government, that we will enter this Imperial Conference and exclude nothing from our consideration. We will object to nothing. We will discuss everything on its merits and with a single-minded desire to do all that is possible, not only in the interests of our country, but in the interests of the Empire as a whole. In saying that, it is a profound mistake not to face facts. It would be a profound mistake to create in the minds of our people, had as is the economic position now, and bad as it may be in the future, the impression that out of the Imperial Conference there is coming an absolute solution for our unemployment problem. That it may, and I hope will, contribute something towards a solution, is what we all ought to hope.
In that connection let us consider the exact facts so far as trade is concerned. The position can be summarised in a few simple figures. Including imports and
exports, the present position is that we do one-third of the trade within the Empire itself. We do one-third of trade with what is known as Europe, and we do one-third, approximately, of course, with the rest of the world; so that the present position is that our Empire trade is just one-third of the total. It is also important to keep clearly in mind another fact, and it is this: Our trade in the Empire is necessarily on our part, a buying from them of food and raw materials, whilst our great trade with Europe is mainly a selling to them of our manufactured articles. Another factor must be considered. The position of our Dominions has changed very considerably in the last 20 years. Twenty years ago they were mainly concerned with food production and the production of raw materials, but the remarkable development of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Africa tends to show that they themselves are manufacturing today considerable quantities of the goods that hitherto we supplied to them.
That is borne out by some other facts. From 1913 to 1928, the total world expansion of trade was approximately 20 per cent. Curiously enough, taking the Empire as a whole, the Empire's quota of that development in trade is also 20 per cent., which shows that the general Empire trade was proportionate to that of the general world trade; but unfortunately, whilst the world trade has increased 20 per cent. and the Empire trade has increased 20 per cent., our trade, that is the trade of the United Kingdom, has dropped 20 per cent. Those are very important facts that must be kept in mind, and must of necessity have a very important hearing upon all the discussions at the Imperial Conference. So far as I can see the only thing likely to be excluded is the referendum, because there is no mention of it. I cannot deal wholly with the agenda because, the House will quite understand, the agenda must be an agreed agenda with the Dominions: but so far as we can see at this moment every range of subjects, except the referendum, that is likely to affect our interests, our trade and commerce and industry, is in some form or another bound to be raised by the items that are already on the agenda.

Sir BASIL PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me? I should be
pleased if he would explain whether Vile very important figures he has just given refer to value or to volume of trade.

Mr. THOMAS: Value. If it had been merely volume I should have had to take into consideration the comparative prices.

Mr. AMERY: The figures which he has been using are, I think, from that very interesting memorandum of the Imperial Economic Committee, where the values have been corrected owing to the change in prices, and therefore they do represent the volume and not merely value.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The 1913 values.

Mr. THOMAS: The 1913 values translated into modern values.

Mr. AMERY: That does, of course, in fact, mean volume.

Mr. THOMAS: It could probably mean volume, but it really means values, because it also takes into consideration the change in prices, in values, in the period. Therefore, the figures can be compared, as like with like, for the two periods.

Sir B. PETO: I only condensed my question.

Mr. THOMAS: I want to answer the first question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir Herbert Samuel). I can tell him that all the items that he has mentioned already are subjects for discussion, and I take this opportunity of saying that I think it is a good thing that the nation should know the value and importance of these items, and not assume that the Imperial Economic Conference is merely discussing one item to the exclusion of all others. For instance, I would take a few: questions of Imperial co-operation in matters of research and dissemination of intelligence amongst producers; all matters concerning the International Institute of Agriculture; cotton-growing in the Empire, forestry, minerals; the work of Imperial organisation; petrol production and refinement within the Empire; research statistics; transport; communications; shipping—and so I could go through the whole list, all of which covers the right hon. Gentleman's point, and many others of a similar nature.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Including the question of organisation?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) made a similar suggestion. He asked, Would it not be possible to set up some permanent body, a sort of secretariat or whatever you might call it, whose work and function it would be exclusively to consider from day to day and from week to week the economic side of the Empire? I think it would be a good thing. The danger, as I see it, and I am sure the House will appreciate it, is that the Dominions naturally resent any sort of idea that they are being run from London. We must get over that difficulty. We must not create the impression that this is merely a stunt, as it were, to run their business. We have to make it perfectly clear that it is as much in their interests as in our interests, and that it is a committee for the whole and not necessarily for ourselves. I think that that is the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman suggested it, and certainly that is the spirit in which I intend to deal with it.
He also asked what is the position in regard to the Colonial Development Act, and he expressed the hope that I would not be coming along for more money for that particular Act. I introduced that Act as an unemployment Measure, but I did not disguise from the House of Commons that Colonial development was also a factor to keep in mind. I did not think for one moment that we were likely to come to the House for more money. I did not think it would be fair to do so, because a tremendous amount of work and development can be carried out with an annual sum of a million, and there is the fact that a million a year for this item alone is something that we ought to say is the limit.
I want to go further. To-morrow morning I am meeting the whole of the Colonial governors who are in London for a conference, and I am meeting them for the purpose of pointing out the absolute necessity, in the interests of the Empire and of unemployment, of using that money, because I believe this is the time to use it, not only because of the unemployment at home, but because of the possible development that will accrue later on. I think that that is the answer which my right hon. Friend de-
sires. With regard to migration, the figures read out must convey to the House what a bearing these figures have upon the problem for which I was lately mainly responsible. I hope that an opportunity will be given later on to examine exactly the comparative figures of migration for this year as compared, at least, with the last five years, but it is only fair to point out to the Committee that it is not for us to condemn any of our Dominions on this matter.
Anyone who goes to the Dominions to ask them to take our people with a view to solving our unemployment problem will not only meet with a short answer, but he will be doing considerable harm to the real problem of Empire develop-anent and migration. You have only to examine the situation in Australia and in Canada, where they are bothered with their own unemployment problem, clearly to understand their difficulty and to appreciate that they are not very anxious to have a large number of newcomers during the present industrial depression. On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman means, as I think he means, and I believe that my right hon. Friend has the same view, that the bigger problem of migration, in a wider sense than has ever before been approached, ought to be discussed, I entirely agree. It is no secret that Australia found themselves compelled to suspend, at least, the very generous arrangements which we bad entered into in 1924–25. Canada, as I have already explained, is experiencing the same difficulty, but it does not mean, in my judgment, that there will not be a change in the future, because I do not take the view that the present economic position is a permanent one. I hope and believe that there will be a change, and, when that change comes, we ought to be in a position to discuss this big and important question, not only from our standpoint, but from their standpoint in such a way that the question of migration will not be left to be dealt with by a few shipping or railway companies, but will be dealt with in a practical and responsible way by responsible Governments as an obligation to those with whom they are dealing. That, at least, is the spirit in which I intend to approach the question.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the value of benefits con-
ferred on us by the different parts of the Empire. I do not minimise those benefits, and I wish to pay tribute here and now, not only to the concession which was made by Mr. Dunning in his last Canadian Budget speech, but to the spirit in which the concession was made. I think that the whole Committee and the country are indebted to Canada and their Government for their action and for the spirit which prompted it. Do not let us get into the mistaken view that all the benefits are always conferred upon us without any return. That is equally a mistaken view. I did not hesitate to say publicly in Canada that I did not go there asking for a favour. I was asking them for a fair return, because we were their best customers. It is not generally realised and appreciated what a tremendous contribution we in this old country make to the Empire as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of trustee securities. I think that he gave the figure as, approximately, at least £5,000,000 per annum. That £5,000,000 is based upon the assumption that the benefits of our Trustee Act are only equivalent in advantage to them—he will correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that that is what he said—to one half per cent. I do not think that any Member of this House or anyone with any knowledge of the City would put it so low. It is a very low estimate. I should have no hesitation in putting it at least at one per cent. Therefore, you have there in that one item £10,000,000 odd. Do not let it be forgotten that the great bulk a that money was invested by us at a time when it was really difficult and when other folks were not entering into these markets, and when the risk was much greater than it is to-day. That is something of which we ought not only to be proud, but something which we are entitled in our own interests to emphasise. In the same way with regard to defence. Examine the figures! Ourselves, a sum of £55,000,000 for naval defence. What were the contributions from the Empire? A sum of £4,000,000. We have no right to forget those figures when we are considering the relative position of this country and the Empire as a whole. Another item is the Empire Marketing Board—approximately £1,000,000 per year. It is an important item. But I
am not giving these figures with the desire or intention of conveying the impression that nothing can be done. I believe that things can be done, and I hope that they will be clone. I want our own people and the country clearly to understand all that is involved in this question and not to create the impression that as far as we are concerned we are not playing our part. We are playing our part, and it is necessary to emphasise that fact.
I have been asked what is my view with regard to the Empire Marketing Board. I want to pay tribute to the Empire Marketing Board. I believe that they are doing a magnificent work. I want to see that work continue, because, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the value of the impression created on all our oversea visitors when they are able to see the real work which we are doing on their behalf is amazing. If I were asked—and indeed I might as well face it now—what is my attitude, I would reply that I would not ask any of our Dominions to make a contribution. I would not for one moment think of doing so, but I would point out to them the value of our work, and I would urge, not press, that perhaps reciprocation might be carried out in their countries by acting similarly on our behalf. I do not think that that would be asking too much. I do not think that it is an unfair request, but a request to which there would probably be a favourable response.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a very difficult question with regard to the position of the trustee securities. Shortly, he says, when we were enabled to extend our own trustee lists for the benefit of our Dominions a restriction was imposed which is repugnant to the position which they occupy to-day. I think I have summarised the right hon. Gentleman correctly. Let us look at the facts. I will, first, place myself in their position. I will place myself in the position of a Dominion which is anxious to borrow money. I would hesitate, if I were in their position, before I asked for any alteration, and for this reason. I am assuming that there is a large number of Members in the Committee who do not know the technical point involved. When these securities were established as a trust they were accompanied by a declaration that if any legislation were
introduced in the Dominion which was likely to imperil the security of that trust, it could, on an appeal by a British Minister to His Majesty, be annulled. I think that those are the short facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman asks, "Why not boldly face the situation and say 'Well, that declaration ought now to be abolished, as it is not necessary'?" The first observation I will make is that it could not possibly apply to the existing contracts. Therefore, it could only apply to new money. But the answer; surely, is that those who are in the position of lenders are not Governments. We do not lend to the Dominions. They themselves must come to the money market. This is a safeguard not only to them, but to those who are lending as well. It would be a very dangerous thing to interfere in any way with what is accepted as a guarantee in a trustee security. The first effect, if you amended the arrangement, would be to lessen the value of the security, and by lessening the value of the security you would, inevitably, put up the rate of interest, and, instead of helping the Dominions, it would have the opposite effect.

Mr. AMERY: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me in a sentence or two to put my point again. The value to the investor lies very largely in the action of the British Government in allowing these securities to be listed as trustee stocks. In the early days of Colonial government it was very natural that the investor, in addition to that advantage, should look for the ultimate security of his stock to the British Government's control over the Colonial Government. I believe that to-day that aspect, the mere honouring of the bond, is sufficiently supported by the standing and position of the Dominion Governments themselves, especially if emphasised by the formal declaration of the Governments concerned, and, in the last resort, by recourse of the British Government to an inter-Imperial tribunal. But the other factor, the value added to the stock by being on the trustee list, is due to the action of the British Government, and I hope that it may be possible for that value to continue to be added to Imperial securities even if Dominion Governments no longer feel it possible to give a guarantee in the precise form constitutionally accepted 30 years ago.

Mr. THOMAS: Every prospectus issued bears the clear declaration that it is not guaranteed by the British Government. It is no use to say that the hall-mark ought to be that of the British Government, because that could only be true if the British Government were guaranteeing it. The British Government clearly and definitely say: "No, we do not guarantee it," and the Dominion is compelled to issue that clearly and definitely on the prospectus. If it is to be said, "After all, the British Government's name ought to be good enough," see what that involves.

Mr. AMERY: I did not say that.

Mr. THOMAS: That is the implication of it. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question and I felt that it was necessary for me to give my views at once. I cannot possibly hold out any hope so far as I am concerned—I have had no chance of discussing the matter with my colleagues—but speaking for myself, I do not think it would be a good thing, and I do not think that it would be in the best interests of the Dominions themselves. I certainly should feel if I were either a borrower or a representative of a Government borrowing, that it would be a very dangerous innovation. That is my view at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked what was to be the position in regard to setting up some tribunal to deal with the very important matters arising out of 1926. I say frankly to the Committee that I do not think the country has had any opportunity of fully appreciating the tremendous importance of the highly contentious and in some cases, unless very carefully handled, dangerous innovations made. The right hon. Gentleman knew that, because he was responsible, and he also knows that while they were contained in phrases and resolutions, the implications of them, the giving effect to them and the interpretation of them, are a source of considerable anxiety to all of us at this moment. They are things which, whilst not occupying the public stage and not receiving that publicity that other matters in connection with the Imperial Conference are receiving, are such that it would be a profound mistake for anyone in this House to minimise their tremendous importance, not only for the future of this country, but for the
very constitution of the British Empire. I say no more than this, that they are occupying our attention. We are not responsible for them, but we find ourselves in the position of having to deal with them.
A suggestion was made that there ought to be what I would call some Imperial court. Hitherto, prior to this position being created, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council usually dealt with these matters. Then there came the changes and talk about other tribunals, all of which are being considered by us at this moment. We are exploring very carefully, with all the very best advice at our command, the possibility of some such tribunal to deal with these matters as mentioned by my right hon. Friend. I am sure that the Committee will excuse me from saying more on this very delicate subject than that I hope that will be the way in which we shall get over the difficulty. I hope that we shall succeed. If we do succeed, I cannot find words to express the value that I should place upon that decision as being one of the most momentous steps ever taken towards the consolidation and the real democratic advance of the British Empire, as we know it. It will be in that spirit and with that object in view that we shall deal with the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question that I raised with him when I was in Opposition and he was Secretary of State for the Dominions, with regard to the representation of the Opposition at the Imperial Conference. I raised that question on behalf of my party, because I felt then, and I feel now, that nothing is more calculated to do harm than an Imperial Conference being held, decisions being arrived at, a change of Government following, and all these decisions being then upset. The bad impression created in those circumstances in different parts of the Dominions cannot be overestimated. Therefore, I suggested prior to the last Imperial Conference, on behalf of our party, that we might get over the difficulty by representation of the Opposition. There are still, in my judgment, many questions, especially the one with which I have just dealt, the technical, difficult, constitutional and legal problems, which are vital to all parties, and in regard to which a continuity of policy is essential. I
have no hesitation in saying that this kind of question ought to be the subject not merely of party decision but of Government decision which would be applicable to all. It was in that spirit that I made the suggestion to my right hon. Friend. He replied to me then—I have looked up his reply—very definitely. He pointed out that as far as his Government were concerned, they could not accede to that request, and they were fortified in that view by the action of the Dominions themselves. Unfortunately, that is the position to-day.
The Dominions hold very strong views on that matter, but, speaking for our own Government, I want to make it perfectly clear that we stand on that question just as I indicated when I made the request from the Opposition side of the House. If the Dominions themselves agree to it, then, so far as we are concerned, we certainly would welcome it, but, on the other hand, it would be absurd for us to impose a condition which was not acceptable to the other parts of the Empire. Whether certain questions might receive consideration from other than Governments is a matter that would have to be further considered. Whether our own Government would take the risk of ourselves being represented in a different form from the other Dominions, because it would be ourselves that would be doing it, would be, I think, an innovation that would be calculated to do more harm than good. I have, however, indicated that, so far as we are concerned, we have not changed our view, and if any of our Dominions feel that they would like that policy to be adopted, there will be no opposition so far as we are concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the very important and controversial subject of internal currency, internal in the sense of Empire currency. The general question of currency and the virtues and vices of the gold standard I have had hammered into me during the last 12 months until, God knows, I do not know which is right and which is wrong. I am happy that I am not called upon to give any explanation hearing on the gold standard and man months. We are asked whether this question will be discussed at the Imperial Conference. It is a tremendously difficult and tremendously important question. I do not
think that anyone is in a position to dogmatise on any of these technical questions. There was a time when it was quite easy to argue the merits of the gold standard, when it would have been easy to have had a straightforward, simple explanation of the value or otherwise of inflation or deflation; but the economic position of the world to-day and the remarkable changes which have occurred, make one feel that it would be unwise to dogmatise as to the virtues or otherwise of any of them.
No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that this subject bristles with internal difficulties so far as the Empire is concerned. I will give one simple illustration that has occurred to me without a moment's consideration. Look at the amazing difficulty there would be in Canada, with the borderline of America, with the daily trade as between America and Canada, with American transport running into Canada, with American methods practically over the whole of Canada. One can see at a glance the tremendous difficulty that would be encountered there. If the question is to be raised, and I understand that it is likely to be raised, well, it will have to be considered, but whether the result of that consideration will enable some scheme to emerge one cannot tell until the discussion has taken place. I say on this subject, as I have said previously with regard to others, all these things are legitimate subjects for our consideration.
I have only been Secretary of State for the Dominions about 10 days, and I have replied as clearly as I could to the many technical points that have been raised. I am very happy to be able to take part in this discussion to-day, rather than in a discussion on the Lord Privy Seal's salary. I look forward to the Imperial Conference with interest and pleasure—interest because I believe there never was a time when a more thorough and impartial consideration should be given to all our problems than at this moment, because I believe the present state of our own country is such that nothing ought to prevent any individual or party from examining anything and everything that will tend to mitigate, ease or help our problems; and pleasure because it will enable me to renew the acquaintance of many old friends in the
Dominions in a more agreeable atmosphere than that of the office of the Lord Privy Seal.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: It is an unfortunate circumstance, so far as this debate is concerned, that the right hon. Gentleman's salary does not yet appear in the Vote, but I feel certain that not even for £5,000 would he return to the office of the Lord Privy Seal, and we are all glad to see him discharging his great responsibilities as the head of the Dominions Office. Let me say a word or two, first of all, on the question of the representation of parties in the Imperial Conference. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the subjects to be discussed will be of peculiar delicacy, difficulty and complexity. It will be a very critical conference. We have been warned of that my many of the great Imperial statesmen, including General Smuts in his speeches both in this country and in Canada. It is, of course, vital not only in connection with the delicate constitutional question referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but also in regard to economic questions, that we should preserve continuity of policy. We have generally achieved a broad identity of aim and view on the main objectives of Imperial policy, but I have some doubt as to whether we are not exposed to an unnecessary risk so long as Governments enter into these conferences without the support and co-operation of other parties in the State. This question was discussed last year on the initiative of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who raised the issue on this Vote and put forward the idea that we should have a conference of Parliaments. He said:
I myself have suggested that the real solution is that the Imperial Conference, instead of being a Conference of Governments, should be a Conference of Parliaments. By a Conference of Parliaments I mean a conference where representatives of all parties would be present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1929; col. 441, Vol. 227.]
Later on in the same speech he said:
Evers view I have expressed to-day is and will be the considered policy of our party and what we intend to give effect to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April 1929; col. 447, Vol. 227.]
What steps have been taken during the past 12 months to give effect to this policy? There are, of course, difficulties.
It is not a policy which you can ram down the throats of the Dominions; it can only be considered if they are willing to accept it. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), in opposing the suggestion last year, made it quite clear that one of the difficulties was that the Dominions were not favourable. But have any steps been taken by the present Government to ascertain whether the objections of the Dominions are less strong now than they were then? Even on such comparatively small matters as an adjustment of tariffs and fiscal arrangements, which the Conservative party proposed to the Imperial Conference of 1923, their rejection was undoubtedly an unfortunate episode, merely from the point of view of Imperial relations. It was inevitable from the first day that they were announced that they would be strongly and sincerely opposed by representatives of other parties in this country, yet the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook last year said that he did not realise that they ran so counter to the conditions of other parties, and he added.
I will go so far as to say that it might conceivably have been a good thing in 1923 if, outride the Economic Conference, we had taken some Members of other parties into consultation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1929; col. 483, Vol. 227.]
I hope there will be some measure of consultation between the other parties in the State on the important questions which are to be discussed at the forthcoming Conference. The principle of continuity of policy is in some degree opposed to the principle of rapidity of action, but in matters concerning the whole economic progress of the great family of nations which is known as the British Empire progress must be slaw and continuity of policy, in my submission, is vital. But continuity of policy can have very little validity as a principle of political action for any political party unless there is previous consultation. I will only add that the idea of placing large issues of policy outside the range of party controversies and even outside the range of Parliament sovereignty by a mechanical constitutional device like the Referendum is not only chimerical but dangerous. I agree with the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that there should be some organisation actively in operation between these Imperial Conferences, and
I am delighted to hear that this matter is on the agenda of the next Conference.
I want to refer on broad and general lines to a question which is one of the most important and perhaps the most fundamental that will come before the Imperial Conference, and that is the question of oversea settlement. If we are frank we must admit that progress has been disappointing in recent years. The Secretary of state agrees, and says that it ought to be discussed in wider aspects than it has been hitherto. I am glad to hear that statement from the right hon. Gentleman. I quite agree that it must not merely or mainly be considered as a means for meeting the unemployment difficulties of this country. Ultimately and indirectly it will have an immense effect upon the future prosperity of this country but, in the meantime, it is a common imperial concern. You have these vast empty spaces in our great Dominions and teeming populations in other countries knocking at the gate, and that is a great danger not only to this country but to every single Dominion and to the whole structure of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We must take the lead in these matters. I have a few practical suggestions to make but I understand that I must not do so on this Vote, but must wait until a better opportunity occurs later on.
There is one consideration, however, which I might mention now, and that is this, that it is a great mistake for us to discuss the question of Imperial and overseas development on the one hand and home development, agricultural development in this country, on the other hand in watertight compartments. They are all part of the same policy. We do not want to get them into antagonism, some people saying that we must go in for the development of agriculture and others that the important thing is to get the men abroad. They are all part of one problem; and the foundation of that problem is the development of the countryside at home. Unless you have a policy for the development of agriculture at home, for the development of the countryside, a policy to meet the land-hunger which exists for small holdings, you are trying to build your Imperial house without its foundations. The foundation is a healthy, prosperous and
vigorous peasantry in our own country, from which you will be able to find the pioneers. People often complain that in these days there are no pioneers. The reason is because we have dried up the supply of pioneers at the source. Our villages are empty, our farm servants, our agricultural labourers and our fishermen are leaving the countryside. You will have to reverse that process if you are to lay the foundations of a strong and vigorous Empire.
From a consideration of oversea settlement it is natural to turn to the question of markets and the full economic development of our Imperial resources. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman for Sparkbrook that this is the only direction in which the Dominions are prepared for Imperial co-operation, but it is certainly an important one. It would therefore be a tragedy if in the name of Imperial unity and with the object of promoting the freer flow of trade and rapid economic development we were to place upon the trade of this Empire the shackles—the dangerous and galling shackles—of a system of tariffs.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant. Member that the question of tariffs does not arise on this Vote at all.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am sorry to have transgressed but I am speaking in general terms. I was not going to refer to any particular policy.

The CHAIRMAN: A denunciation of tariffs by the hon. and gallant Member means that I must allow an appreciation of tariffs from the other side of the Committee.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I thought we had an appreciation of tariffs from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook.

The CHAIRMAN: It may have been so, but at that moment a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman was asking me a question about another Vote on Monday.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is wonderful staff work on the part of the Front Opposition Bench. I do not wish to transgress the Ruling you have laid down and, therefore, I take it that the question of the Import Board, a subject in
which the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Wise) is interested, is also outside the discussion?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Surely it will be possible to discuss the Import Board in relation to the forthcoming Imperial Conference? It does not entail legislation, and I do not think it comes in the same category as tariffs. It is the same thing as currency.

The CHAIRMAN: In relation to the question of currency I understood the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether it would come up as part of the agenda of the forthcoming Imperial Conference. There is no reason why the hon. Member for Aberdeen, East (Mr. Boothby) should not make inquiries as to whether the Import Board is coming up on the agenda, but a general discussion on the work of the Import Board cannot be allowed.

6.0 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I will only express, in passing, the hope that by this time next year the Secretary of State will have received his salary and that we shall have a wider discussion on Empire settlement and other matters which we have been prevented from raising on this occasion. I should like to have the opportunity of expressing my full agreement wall) those practical and constructive proposals which were put forward by the right hon. Member for Darwen. I am glad to see the Postmaster-General here. It would be well if we could have a cheapening of Imperial postage, with freer circulation of newspapers and reviews, and I hope that all those matters, with cable, and wireless, and those very important questions which have already been mentioned by the three right hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me, will be considered.
There is one particular matter in that connection, the importance of which I would like to stress, and that is the question of aviation. It is important from many points of view. It is important from the point of view of swift communication between the peoples in various parts of the Empire, and it is important because we have here a great new industry, which we have been a little slow in developing on the industrial side. We are leading on the technical side. Our pilots
and airmen have proved themselves to be the finest in the world. Those great flights that have been made across the Atlantic—which our pilots, after all, were the first to fly—and to Australia, the speed records which we hold, and the winning of the Schneider Trophy have placed us in a leading position in the aviation of the world. On the operational side, too, the work of Imperial Airways is second to none among the operating companies in the world, and they are now giving advice to operating companies in every country.
We are at the present time spreading our Imperial air routes. The mileage grew last year from 19,000 to 35,000, or nearly double in 1929 compared with 1928, and there are great opportunities and great need in the vast spaces of the Empire for the development of civil aviation, for the improvement of communications between the different parts, and, as I say, for the building up of a great new industry, which will take its place in future years among the great industries of the Empire, just as shipping has in the past.
I would also mention the importance of voluntary Preference, as I am not allowed to discuss Imperial Preference. It is a very important thing, and one which arouses no controversy in any part of the House—the importance of the work of the Empire Marketing Board in this country, and its publicity work in particular, in promoting a willingness on the part of the people here to buy Empire goods. It is a great asset that we have a family of nations, and it is a very great asset for the trade of this family of nations that there is this inclination to buy the goods of other countries in the Empire.
There was perhaps only one portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen with which I did not find myself in complete agreement, and that was his reference to the publicity expenditure of the Empire Marketing Board. Nor on the other hand do I think it deserved the strictures that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook passed upon it, because he did not criticise it root and branch, but suggested that it was a part of the expenditure of the Board that ought to be particularly carefully watched. As a matter of fact,
although it is true that sums of approximately £200,000 have been voted in a year for the publicity side of the Board's work, it does not all go in posters or in Press campaigns. Actually last year only about £60,000 was spent under each of these headings, but, a lot of it goes to exhibitions in this country, like those which the right hon. Gentleman himself so much admired and by which he was so much struck when he visited Belgium the other day. That comes under the head of publicity expenditure. Then there is work in connection with cinemas, and not only has it this great effect in encouraging Empire buying here and in satisfying the Dominions that we are doing something for them, but I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Imperial Economic Committee, whose work he praised so highly and so deservedly, recommended that no less than £600,000 should be spent on publicity work. Therefore, I think these sums which we are now spending on publicity are, having regard to the immense field in which we have to operate, by no means excessive.
I entirely agree with him that by far the most important branch of our work is the research work which we are doing. We have supplied for this Imperial research work, which is all agricultural research work at present, plant, money, and the means of co-operation between scientific workers of the highest capacity, working in an immense variety of conditions, which will enable them to make progress which, without that co-operation and without constant interchange of information at every stage of the development of their work, would have been quite beyond the range of possibility. It has given better prospects for young men to enter upon this career of research, which is so vitally important, from the standpoint of the necessities not merely of this country or even of the Empire, but of mankind as a whole.
It is one of the weaknesses of our civilisation at the present time that these scientific research workers who give themselves up to the pursuit of truth and knowledge are so badly paid, that there are so few prizes to encourage them to go into that kind of work, and I am proud to think that the work of the Empire Marketing Board—in which I
have had a tiny share, for which I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and to the present Secretary of State—is enabling us to do something, at any rate, to advance towards a solution of that problem. We have set up these Imperial and Economic Bureaux, which study great questions like dietetics and genetics, and we have men in each of these sciences, working in different countries, under different conditions, and sending their information and the results of their work back to a clearing house in this country, where it is all sifted, and then that which is of interest to different workers in different parts of the world is sent out again to them.
It is a magnificent system, and it will, in the course of years—it will, of course, take time—produce great results; and I should like to see that extended to aviation. You have, in different parts of the Empire now, these centres of air activity. You have research stations in Canada and other parts of the Empire, and I think it would be a good plan if they could be linked up in the same way so that discoveries made here at the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington, or at Farnborough, and other places, some of which may not have very much application to conditions here, but would be of immense value to research workers in other parts of the Empire, may be pooled with the results of research workers in other parts of the Empire, and co-operation organised in a central clearing house or Imperial Bureau. I hope that will also be discussed at the Imperial Conference and some such organisation instituted for aviation research. This work of linking up scientists all over the Empire is going to enable us, I hope and believe, to take a real lead in this vital work all over the world. It makes it simpler when they are all working together, with men talking the same language; it makes it easier for them to make progress; and no doubt one other thing that makes it easier is the fact that there is a little of the spirit of national egotism or patriotism entering into the work and inspiring them as they go along. National egotism is a dangerous force. It creates armaments, it leads us into war, and it deludes us with all sorts of economic heresies, but if it is harnessed, it can be made of use. Let it quicken our statesmanship, let it inspire and lead to co-operation among our great
scientific research workers in all parts of the world, and let it be our proudest boast, not that we have greater armaments, or more money, or wider territories than any other nation in the world, but that we are foremost among the nations in the pursuit of truth and knowledge and thereby contribute the more abundantly to the progress of civilization and to the welfare of the people not merely of our country, or the Empire, but of all mankind.

Mr. WISE: In the interesting speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), there was one point which I think requires some consideration. He talked about the desirability, before the Imperial Conference starts, of proper consultations between the three Front Benches. Whether or not that may be desirable—and on the whole I think it is, and I gather from the smile of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who is leading the Liberal party at the moment, that he shares my view, and possibly he has good reason to feel confident as to its possibility—I would suggest that it is more important that there should be an opportunity in this House, before the Imperial Conference starts, of discussing the proposals which the Government intend to lay before the Conference.
Many of us on these benches had hoped that this Vote to-day would have given us that opportunity, and I hope the Government, in full accord with their views on relations between Governments and Parliaments in the past, will take the House into their confidence and give us the opportunity of a full discussion on the measures which they propose to lay before the Imperial Conference, and particularly those that refer to the economic relations between the Dominions and other parts of the Empire and this country. That is a matter which raises great controversial issues of public policy, and the House is entitled to discuss them, as I think, before the Government commit the country to them.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I think the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing that question in detail. He is entitled to ask questions, but he could not discuss the merits or the details of specific relations.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. As it has been ruled that we cannot discuss these varied questions because the salary of the Secretary of State has not been put down, would it be in order for me or one of us to move that the salary of the Secretary of State should be minus £5, in order that we could get on to the business which we all want to discuss—that he owes us £5.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is impossible to move a reduction of a salary that is not there.

Mr. WISE: I have no desire to discuss the merits of a policy which, in fact, has not yet been disclosed. The Minister in his speech referred to the figures of trade between this country and the Dominions. He drew attention to the fact that while the trade of the Dominions, like the trade of the rest of the world, had in the period between 1913 and now increased by 20 per cent. or more, actually the trade of this country was down by 20 per cent., and he gave some indication that figures of this sort might in due course come before the Imperial Conference. I observe that the Empire Marketing Board, among its other valuable activities, is conducting some interesting economic researches. I regard the Board as one of the most interesting experiments in State Socialism in which the party opposite has yet indulged, because it brings the State into a whole range of activities and a whole sphere of interests which hon. Members opposite always told us were the special preserves of private traders.
The researches to which I refer constitute no small part of its work and though they cover a rather wide range, the actual investigations, at present, seem to be rather narrow and particular in their scope. They are looking into such questions as the sale of Australian butter in this country and the better marketing of Scottish eggs and matters of that sort, and, incidentally, under this heading they finance the investigations of the economic missions which sometimes make extremely valuable reports on trade between Australia and this country. I suggest to the Government and those who direct the policy of the Board that those researches ought to be extended to cover a much wider range and that before the Imperial Economic Conference
sits, Parliament should be furnished, and of course the Conference itself should be furnished, with reports bearing on a number of important problems of a much wider range than those which seem to be dealt with under this heading at present.
The Minister referred to the total figures of Dominion trade and to the export trade of this country. If he had carried his investigation into the detailed figures of the trade of particular Dominions with this country, imports and exports, I think he would have disclosed facts and tendencies which are extremely grave and dangerous. Actually it is quite true that the Dominions' trade—their exports and imports—have largely increased, but if we take the trade of Australia, New Zealand or South Africa with this country in the last year for which figures are available, namely 1928, and compare that trade with their purchases from this country in 1913, and reduce the figures to a common level of value, it will be found that the purchases by the Dominions in this country in 1928 were rather less than they were in 1913, although in that period the purchases of the Dominions from other sources of supply very largely increased. For example, Canada's purchases in this country in 1928 were comparatively very little larger, comparing value with value, than in 1913, whereas her purchases from the United States increased by tens of millions of pounds.
Australia's purchases in this country in 1928 were in value no larger than in 1913 though her purchases from the United States and Japan increased three-fold. In South Africa we find the same state of things and, generally, it is fair to say that while there has been a big increase in the purchase by the Dominions of manufactured goods in the great industrial countries, practically the whole of that increase has gone by this country and those purchases have been made in the United States, in Germany or in Japan. That is a matter of great importance. During most of that period Governments have been in office in this country which, at Election time at any rate, made a great deal of their desire and intention to improve trade between this country and the Dominions. They seem to have failed entirely in securing
for this country any part or any substantial part of that great increase in trade from Canada or other Dominions, which, after all, is one of the most important phenomena in the world of trade to-day. The general purchases of the Dominions in the last 10 or 15 years have increased at a much greater rate than the general increase either of the trade of this country—which in fact has gone backwards—or the general increase of the trade of the world. I think that is a question to the investigation of which the Empire Marketing Board ought to divert a good deal of the money which it is prepared to spend upon research.
I should like the Board to carry it further and to examine the position of each Dominion in detail to see what each Dominion is getting from its trade with this country and what we are getting from our trade with each Dominion. For example, this country takes the largest share of the Canadian wheat export. We also take a great deal of timber, much cheese and various other commodities and altogether, according to the figures given by the late Lord Privy Seal, Canada is selling to us about five times as much as she is buying from us. We find much the same thing in regard to Australia though not to the same extent, and, also, to a smaller extent, in the case of South Africa. This is a matter which no doubt will receive attention at the Imperial Conference. In the meantime, some weeks or months have to elapse and the actual facts and figures trade by trade and commodity by commodity both ways ought to be carefully examined.
Are there no means of utilising the immense value of the British markets to the Canadians and perhaps consolidating their position in some way? Two or three methods have been proposed. There is the method proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite above the Gangway and there is the method of import boards into which I cannot go in detail at this moment. But at any rate it should be within the powers and possibilities of the Empire Marketing Board, in its inquiries into methods of improving trade between this country and the Dominions—and those are its terms of reference—to investigate carefully various methods which may be and have been proposed and to report on the technical details
which will at a later stage arise. Not only could they go into the question of providing Canada and Australia with a more secure market in this country but I think it would be well within their terms of reference, as well as being vital to this country, in view of the figures which have been laid before us as to the general trend of inter-Imperial trade, to examine the various methods to which I have referred. I would stress particularly the method of using the power of bulk imports in bargaining with the Dominions for increasing our export trade and selling to them a larger proportion of the goods which at present they buy from other countries. The Board, as I say, could examine the question of how far these various methods would meet the difficulty arising from a tendency which, if it continues, will be disastrous to British trade.
It need not end there. The case of Canada I have mentioned. The cases of the other Dominions are analogous and a whole range of questions have been raised in a general way, by discussions both outside Parliament and inside the Tory party, in relation to our trade with the Colonies which seems to require careful and elaborate examination so that we may have presented to us an exact and reliable report on the facts and figures involved and on the economic administrative and business effects of the various remedies proposed. I believe that the Empire Marketing Board and the various committees of investigation which have been set up under it have performed and are performing services of great value to this country, in view of the very critical position at the moment of our trade generally and our trade with the Dominions—which, after all, has been and should be a big standby to us in our economic problems. I think it is time that the Board expanded its operations so as to provide for Parliament that exact and reliable material which could be made the basis and foundation of an effective policy of trade expansion, on lines suited to the changed circumstances of world trade, in which we are getting great concentrations of buying and selling in other countries, and on lines more in accord with the general temper of this House and of the country, which looks to the expansion of State activities rather than to the fostering and
buttressing up of private trade as the way out of our difficulties. I believe that these reports would be of immense value to the country.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The speech of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) was, as his speeches usually are, very interesting and proved to be a plea for some measure of accurate thought applied to the economic problems of the day. It always seems to me, especially when we are dealing with a question such as that before us now—the importance of which cannot be over estimated—that one of the tragedies of our age is that all the problems that matter are purely economic. They are not moral, ethical, religious or political, but are enonomic problems, pure and simple. No other problems at the present time are of the slightest importance. But party politicians, unfortunately, are not the people who, by reason of their profession, are best qualified to address their minds to the solution of these problems. We must sooner or later in this country set up some machinery which will help us to achieve a solution of the economic problems which press upon us so severely. I believe that the hon. Member for Leicester is quite right in pointing out that the Empire Marketing Board might be developed, and indeed will have to be developed, into one engine of economic thought, so that the politicians—and the Government of the day—may be supplied with accurate information upon certain questions.
There are one or two parts of the problem to which I wish to direct the particular attention of the Under-Secretary. Although I disagree with some of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), he made one observation which I regard as profoundly true. It was that the question of British industrial and agricultural prosperity and the question of Imperial prosperity are only two parts of one central, interrelated problem; and I believe he was also right when he went on to say that the whole future of Imperial economic prosperity must be founded upon British agricultural prosperity. That perhaps is the key to the whole major problem at the present time. I hope that the Imperial Economic Conference will have its attention directed continally to the
state of agriculture, not merely in the Dominions, but also in this country. But General Smuts went to the root of the question of Imperial trade when he pointed out, as long ago as 1922, that you could not fairly expect the Dominions to continue to take manufactured goods in large quantities from these islands, and at the same time get no reciprocal advantage from us in the way of taking their produce. We in this party believe that reciprocal tariffs must be an essential part of the future economic structure of the British Empire; and I would ask the hon. Gentleman a definite question, which has not yet been answered, namely, whether the consideration of such tariffs is definitely excluded from the agenda of the Economic Conference? I hope that the question will not be excluded.
The same thing applies to import control and bulk purchase, about which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Leicester has been talking. If ever there were a problem which in its essence ought to be non-party and outside the political bias of all sections of the community, it is this. It is a highly technical question; many powerful arguments can be adduced in its favour, and a great many can be brought against it; it certainly ought not to be handled by the Central Office of the Conservative party on the one hand or by the Publicity Bureau of the Labour party in Eccleston Square on the other, nor by the "pamphlet" method. This matter of import control is far too technical to be made the sport of party politics. It is a question which ought to be considered on its merits by trained economists. The difficulties are not political difficulties; they arise out of the danger of not being able to stop if you once embark on a policy of this kind, and whether you would be led further and further, ultimately to control the whole of production. Some of us are apprehensive about that. If you once embarked on a course of this kind, and there was a breakdown in the machine, a very grave state of affairs would arise.
On the question of inter-Imperial transport, the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland made an extraordinary statement. He said that we led the world in air transport, and that "Imperial Airways"—of all companies, in the world—
was the finest and most efficient company. I submit that we have made disgracefully slow progress in the matter of inter-Imperial air transport in the last 10 years, and I am certain that "Imperial Airways" compares most unfavourably with almost any other important air company operating on the Continent. Compare the discomfort and slowness of "Imperial Airways" with the services you get in Germany; there is room for a vast amount of improvement in the whole of our air development, and organisation. The fact that we won the Schneider Cup is of no substantial importance one way or the other. Compare the importance of the Schneider Trophy, on the one hand, with the whole question of Imperial air development, particularly the development of air transport to India and the Far East, on the other. The service through the Middle East to India has not been developed as it ought to have been in the last three or four years, and the services are not so frequent as they ought to be. I hope that this question of air transport, and also that of telephone communication, will receive the special attention of the Government.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated my point, perhaps he will allow me to elucidate the position. I did not say that we led the world in aviation, but in technical development and the ability of our pilots. The Schneider Cup shows that we have reached a particular standard of technical development in the production of speed aeroplanes; it was in that respect that I referred to the Schneider Cup. Actually, we increased our mileage by 70 per cent. in 1929 as compared with 1928, and by 70 per cent. in 1928 as compared with 1927. These are no mean achievements, and do not deserve to be entirely brushed aside, as if there were something radically wrong with the aviation of this country. My argument was directed to show, as the hon. Member agreed, that we ought to make a great further effort to improve the position of aviation.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not remember the hon. and gallant Gentleman ever having mentioned the excellence of British pilots. If he says that he did, I entirely accept It, and I agree with him; but the excellence of British pilots and
our skill in technical development only make more deplorable our failure to build up air transport on a far larger scale, and to provide a much more efficient and speedier service throughout the Empire.
I wish to turn to a question which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), a question which I hope will be put upon the Agenda of the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference. We did not get a direct answer from the Secretary of State on the point, although he said that the question would not be definitely excluded; but we want to know definitely whether it will be included on the Agenda. I refer to the question of currency—the institution of an Imperial currency. The chief cause of the recent rapid rise in unemployment in this country, and in almost every country in the world, has been the sensational and continuous decline of wholesale prices. The Secretary of State for the Dominions said that we cannot afford to be dogmatic on this question. Nobody can afford to be dogmatic on the subject of anything, but there is one thing that ought to be clear even to the right hon. Gentleman, and that is that the world fall in wholesale prices must be due to monetary causes and can be due to nothing else. Nobody can deny that by inflation we would immediately get a cheek in the fall of wholesale prices, followed by a rise; which proves that monetary causes are responsible for any upward or downward movement over a prolonged period in wholesale world prices.
Some of us have been asking ourselves recently what remedy there is because the Government apparently believe that they are in the grip of world forces over which they have no control whatsoever. For the last four or five months the Government have been telling us that they are practically helpless in the face of these world causes, and that there is nothing for us to do except to sit down and pray that things will be somehow better. That summarises not unfairly the policy of the Government in relation to unemployment. Here is a possible method of escape from forces which, I agree, are world-wide in their operation. The Genoa Conference of 1922 laid down as axiomatic that there must be co-opera-
tion in the use of gold between the central banks of issue, and they recommended that a conference should be summoned forthwith to consider two things—the economical use of gold and the stabilisation of the value of gold in relation to commodities. They are the two things which were held to be necessary if an international gold standard was to be operated successfully. No conference of any kind has been held, and, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook pointed out, there has been during the last two or three years a scramble for the available supplies of gold, which in any event were insufficient for the annual volume of production. The Federal Reserve Board of New York and the Bank of France have been busily sucking in the already insufficient available supplies of gold in the world at the present time.
What are we going to do if we cannot secure international co-operation between the central banks of issue? There would appear to be only one way, and that is to establish an Imperial currency, based upon a gold exchange standard. We ought not to forget that 70 per cent. of the annual output of gold is produced within the British Empire, and I am certain that, if we were to form a common gold pool for the Empire, we could manage to get along by ourselves, and ultimately to free ourselves from dependence on New York on the one hand, and Paris and Amsterdam on the other. If we could establish a gold exchange standard within the Empire, which would mean that the currencies of each participating Dominion or Colony should be exchangeable into one another at par, and if, by one method or another, we could contrive to use to the full the gold resources of the Empire, and also form some form of gold pool, so as to economise its use, we could not only free ourselves from foreign dependence, but do more—stop the disastrous fall in wholesale prices all over the British Empire. Thereby we should do much to relieve the problem of unemployment. I beg the Under-Secretary to give some answer before the House rises in July and indicate that this question will actually be placed on the agenda on the forthcoming conference.
One other point I want to raise relates to the question of machinery, of which we have heard a good deal. I cannot
think that there is sufficient co-ordination on the purely administrative side. How can we expect the Dominions and Colonies Departments, the Overseas Trade Department, the Empire Marketing Board and the Imperial Economic Committee, all these various committees and institutions, to work harmoniously together and evolve a coherent and logical policy of Empire development? It is not possible, and the time has come when we must have some form of permanent organisation to sit between Imperial Conferences to be guided by the decisions of those Conferences, with representatives of the Dominions sitting upon it, but also with a permanent secretariat of its own.
I do not see why the Empire Marketing Board should not be made to serve that purpose. The Empire Marketing Board is one of the most interesting economic experiments that has been carried out in the last few years, and the work that it has done has been beyond praise. I agree with the hon. Member for East Leicester that its work ought to be enormously extended. More research ought to be done over a much wider field, and on the purely marketing side a deal more might be done. I do not see why it should not be fused with the Imperial Economic Committee. I do not see why it should not have a permanent secretariat, and I do not see why, under, of course, the supreme direction of the Secretary of State himself, and ultimately of the Cabinet, it should not be given certain administrative powers and made, in effect, the supreme technical authority so far as the economic development and organisation of the Empire are concerned. At any rate I would beg that this question of machinery should come under the consideration of the Conference.
I will conclude by asking this question: "Will machinery, currency, import control and reciprocal tariffs all come up for consideration at this forthcoming Conference?" because I am perfectly certain that it is upon those four main points that the future economic organisation of the British Empire must ultimately be built up. I do not say they must all be put into operation, although I am perfectly certain there ought to be a change of machinery now; but these are the four vital questions from the purely economic point of view, and they
ought to be exhaustively considered. As is well known, many of us on this side of the Committee, whatever our political allegiances may be, do believe that unless we in this country can be brought to form part of an economic unit which is large enough to take the goods which are produced now under mass production, unless we can form part of an economic unit larger than ourselves, we shall be isolated, and cut off by the powerful economic unit of the United States of America on the one side and by Europe on the other side, both surrounded by high and growing tariff walls. That is our fear, and we do see in the Empire, in no jingo or tub-thumping spirit, a potentially more powerful, richer and stronger unit from every point of view than any unit the world has ever known.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee and the Under-Secretary a subject which has not been alluded to but which happens to be within the sphere of competence of the Dominions Office, and that is the question of our relations with Southern Rhodesia. I had intended to raise some other questions which, I understand from your predecessor in the Chair, would not be covered by the Vote, but this particular subject, as far as I can ascertain, can only be dealt with on the Estimate for the Dominions Secretariat, because it has no special Vote of its own. It is one of those cases where the Dominions Office still retain functions very similar to those of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, where, owing to the peculiar difficulty of separating out on a logical basis the functions relating to the Dominions and Colonies, certain obligations for the protection of native interests are still left with the Secretary of State for the Dominions. When a Constitution was granted to Southern Rhodesia which makes it, in effect, a Dominion, and therefore brings it under the Dominion Office, certain restrictions were imposed in it in the interests of the native population, who number some 800,000 persons, as against the 40,000 white persons to whom the government of the whole country was committed. The restriction related to the acquisition of land. By Section 43 of the Constitution a native may acquire, hold, encumber and dispose of land on the same conditions as a person who is not a native.
The Southern Rhodesian Government wished to introduce a Measure which was inconsistent with that provision. That Measure declared that certain areas of land should be open for purchase by white persons only and certain other areas open for purchase by natives only. I am not attacking the principle of this Bill at all, but am raising a question of more general application, namely, the method by which we are to enforce or apply the restriction embodied in this Constitution. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that the action taken in this respect has not been very satisfactory. The Bill proposed that some 18,000,000 acres should be open for purchase by whites and 8,000,000 acres, a very much smaller area, for the natives, and that round about another 18,000,000 acres should be left over for future allocation, without any provision being made for it at all. This clearly goes against the provision that the native must be allowed to Purchase land on exactly the same terms as the white, and, therefore, a change had to be made in Clause 43 of the Constitution. I am not suggesting to the Under-Secretary that he should have refused to sanction the Bill. There is a case for it. I am not saying the Southern Rhodesian Government could not make out quite a reasonable argument to the effect that the natives would, in the long run, be better off under these new provisions than they are now in actual fact, but I suggest that the position of the Secretary of State, who had to see that this Clause was observed or altered, should have enabled him to impose—I will not say "impose," that is a disagreeable word, but suggest—better terms for the natives. It might have been suggested that a large proportion of the land left unallocated should be allocated to native purchase. The terms were not fair in my opinion, even though the principle of the Bill might be fair.
As far as I understand it what has happened is that the Secretary of State has been willing virtually to abrogate this restrictive provision in the Constitution altogether and not merely in order to allow this Bill to become an Act of Parliament. We have been told that Amendments are being introduced in this restricted Clause doing away with the protection which was formerly guaranteed to the natives in respect of land purchase, and that this abrogation
applies not only to this Bill but to all future times. For aught we know, there may be other suggestions in future that are inequitable as between the natives and the white inhabitants, and the protection laid down by Clause 43 will no longer be available. I ask for information on the subject, because on the face of it it looks as though a most valuable protection had been thrown away; but I admit that I do not know, because we have not been told, what exactly the Amendment of Clause 43 has been. If the Under-Secretary can show that this Clause has only been amended in such a way as to let through this particular Bill and that something is still left of it which still provides that protection for native interests which was reserved to the Imperial Government no one will be better satisfied than I shall be.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to raise certain points in connection with the work of the Empire Marketing Board.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it is obvious that it is almost impossible to separate the two Votes, and if it is the wish of the Committee I propose to allow the Empire Marketing Board to be discussed on the first Vote.

Mr. MANDER: It seems to me that there are two very different sides to the work of the Board, and I desire to distribute a little praise and blame over the two sides. I would like to pay a tribute to the excellent work being done in research and marketing. That is a thoroughly sound and businesslike way of developing the Empire, and I am glad to see a considerable increase in the amount budgeted for this year on that side of the work. I hope the Government will concentrate as much of their energy as they can on the research and marketing side. I wish to ask the Under-Secretary what steps are being taken to prevent overlapping. We have in the Board a very effective instrument, but within the last year we have set up under the Colonial Development Act another body which is doing, to some extent, similar work, and we also have the Imperial Institute, and I rather think there are other bodies also engaged in work of this kind. I believe there is considerable overlapping. I think the Government ought seriously to consider
whether the Imperial Institute is really necessary and ought to be continued on its present scale in the existing situation. I understand that some years ago there was an idea of bringing its functions to an end.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): Is the hon. Member putting this in the form of a question, or has he any evidence of his statement?

Mr. MANDER: I do not make the statement without having ground for believing that it is true.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: But it is a question?

Mr. MANDER: I am asking the question. I want him to be good enough to give the Government's view when he replies. I certainly think there is something in it. On the publicity side of the work of the Board there has been a shocking waste of public money. This country is obtaining no value at all for a great deal of that expenditure. No doubt it has had a certain effect in bringing orders to this country and making people buy the products of the Empire, but not in proportion to the amount of money expended, and I believe the public are getting rather tired of seeing these posters about the country. I think the frames themselves are too small to attract the proper attention in an outside advertising campaign, and that the appeals are lacking in freshness. I hope the Government will see their way to cutting out as far as possible the whole of the work on the Press publicity side. I am glad to see they have cut down expenditure to a certain extent this year—£18,000 on the Press campaign and £35,000 on the poster campaign; but we are still spending £263,000 a year on distributing orders to newspapers and placing posters all over the country in order to persuade ourselves to buy goods which we might not otherwise want to purchase, and in some cases to persuade one Dominion to buy the goods of another Dominion, a matter which does not affect us directly at all. I say that it is a fundamentally unsound and unbusinesslike arrangement. We might as well expect when we purchase some Bovril or Cadbury's chocolate or Guinness to receive in addition to the article a bill making a charge in order
to help to pay for the advertising of those products. That is what is happening in the operations of the Empire Marketing Board, and I say this practice cannot be defended on its merits. The inception of the Empire Marketing Board was none too respectable. It really arose through an attempt to get the Leader of the Opposition out of a hole into which he had fallen. He was at that time dabbling in one of his efforts at food taxation. In 1923 he went to the country with a very limited scale of food taxes, only taxing tinned salmon or something of that kind, and the electors rejected even that small amount of food taxation as they will always reject food taxation, whether protected by referendum or by any other device. When they rejected it and the right hon. Gentleman came into office again, he desired to keep faith, and, being unable to put duties on food, he decided to spend £1,000,000 in order to make up for the pledges he could not keep. As channels had to be found to spend the money, a large sum had to be placed out on publicity work which is thoroughly unsound.
As to the other side of the propaganda, when we had the "Buy British" campaign, it did a lot of harm to this country in other parts of the world. It was keenly resented by foreign countries who thought that we were not interested in their needs in any way. I ask the Government to consider seriously the reactions of this policy. We are exporting to foreign countries £400,000,000 of goods, and it is worth considering whether it is wise and tactful to seem to be interested only in trade with the Empire and to be not really interested in trade with South America or Europe or any other part of the world. There is a great deal to be said for cutting down this expenditure which is doing very little good and in many respects is doing harm. On page 83 of the report of the Empire Marketing Board there is a reference to the poster frames erected in other countries, Australia, New Zealand, West Africa and the British West Indies. Have we really got to this position, that we are spending money to erect frames in the West Indies, in New Zealand, and other places in order to persuade the West Indies, for example, to buy South African goods or the New Zealanders to
buy Australian goods? As I understand the scheme outlined on that page, that is what it means at the present time, and it is an extraordinarily far-fetched development, of the Empire Marketing Board, and beyond all reason. I hope the hon. Member will be able to explain why it is being done and hold out some hope that it will be reconsidered in the interests of the taxpayer of this country.
I notice that among the posters displayed was one headed, "The Empire stands for Peace." Is it the intention of the Marketing Board—though there is a great deal to be said for it—to go in for peace propaganda? It is an interesting development, if it is so, but it is somewhat novel, and the Committee ought to be told that the Government are entering upon definite propaganda all over the Empire in favour of peace through the Empire Marketing Board, which was never intended for a purpose of that kind. We do not in the least object to it, and the more of it the better, but whether this particular Vote ought to bear it is a matter for most careful consideration. The Government may say that they have got all these poster frames all over the country and ask what is going to happen to them. I am going to make a suggestion, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. White) the other day. Would it not be possible to let those poster frames to one of the political organisations in this country as was done at the time of the last Election? Would it not be possible to put the Conservative party and Lord Beaverbrook in competition for the hiring of those poster frames in order to put the public in possession of their varying plans for taxing the food of this country? That would raise a good sum of money and would enable the people to see exactly what these food taxation proposals are.
In conclusion, I would say that there are three points I wish to press on the hon. Member: First, to cut down as far as he possibly can the wasteful and uneconomic expenditure on publicity at present; secondly, in so far as work of this kind is carried on by the Board, we should endeavour to make it reciprocal and try to pursuade the Dominions to come in and make it a mutual concern and not place the whole of the burden upon the taxpayers and people of this
country; and, lastly, while saving the money on publicity, we should support the really admirable work being done on research and marketing under the excellent administration of the Empire Marketing Board at the present time.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am really sorry the hon. Member who has just sat down has made this attack. He misunderstands the policy of the Empire Marketing Board in what it is trying to do, and he is still possessed of the idea that the publicity work of the Empire Marketing Board is in come way associated with political propaganda. Let me assure him that from the very outset, under this Government and the last Government, continually through its history every effort has been made to keep any propaganda of that sort out altogether and keep it on an absolutely non-party basis.

Mr. MANDER: I did not suggest that.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: From the first, the value of these posters has been that they do bring home to the people the fact that this country and the Empire overseas do produce articles that they can obtain. The publicity has not been to push the sale of particular commodities, but to give a general background to the whole of the people of this country of the economic advantages of all knds of Empire development. The slogan, "Buy home and overseas" has been welcomed by producers of this country quite as much as by producers overseas. It is not so much the slogan but the general educational value of this publicity in a field which has never been touched before. The hon. Member says that it is doing actual harm. What possible harm can it do people to know what the resources of the Empire are and what is being done in different parts of the Empire?
The use that is being made by the schools up and down the country, and not only in this country but in all parts of the Empire, of those posters has alone been worth all the money. No school need take the posters. Each school, if it wants the posters, must apply for them, and it is entirely a matter for the local teachers and local education authorities if they want them. Thousands of schools controlled by Liberal and Socialist bodies as well as by Conservative bodies have very gratefully received the posters, and
they are enormously appreciated as works of art quite as much as because of their real educational value. I see absolutely no harm in that, but the hon. Member asks why they go overseas.
We want, the people overseas to know that we at home are producing and are doing something to help producers throughout the Empire. Incidentally, it shows the oversea producers that a, real effort is being made by the British Government to find a market for the products of the people we encourage and assist to migrate and produce. The inception of the proposal to spend a certain proportion of the Empire Marketing Board's money on publicity came from the Imperial Economic Committee, a nonpolitical body, and very largely as the result of representations by producers in different parts of the Empire to that effect. The Imperial Economic Committee suggested, as a matter of fact, that a very much higher percentage of the Empire Marketing Board's money should be spent on publicity than on research. In practice the percentages have been reversed. It is right that they should be so.

Sir H. SAMUEL: What has been the total?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid I have not the figures. You must remember that, under the head of publicity, there are included not merely posters and Press, but such things as trade shows, shows at the Ideal Home Exhibition, at the Grocers' Exhibition, at the Cookery Exhibition, and at the British Industries Fair, both in London and Birmingham, a whole series of efforts to bring forward what is done in the different parts of the Empire. Anybody who has been to the British Industries Fair, for example, always comes back saying that the Empire Marketing Board's display was one of the most valuable displays and was the means of getting orders both in this country and all parts of the Empire.
The publicity is dovetailed in many cases with the work of the scientific side of the Board. Take what has been done in regard to marketing research. We have found that the best way to get that carried out in practice has been to show what can be done by taking a shop window and showing the properly graded
eggs and butter and so on. It has been an invaluable help in bringing home to the traders of this country how quality in showmanship and in the actual article always pays, and it has been an immense benefit to the producers of this country and of the countries overseas.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) suggested that the poster frames should be leased for political purposes to politial parties, but I hope that, under no circumstances, will that be done. The poster frames have been placed upon sites which do not enter into competition with ordinary commercial advertising. They are used only for educational purposes, and in every case the sites are chosen with the consent of the local authorities. They are erected on sites where the local authorities would not allow hoardings to be erected for political propaganda, and long may that continue to be the policy of the Empire Marketing Board.
Reference has been made to the question of overlapping. I made a speech on that subject last year when the Colonial Development Bill was introduced, because I was apprehensive, at that time, that there might be overlapping between the various organisations in regard to scientific work. The present Government asked me to serve on some of those committees last year, and I know that machinery has been devised for preventing overlapping. The chairman of the Advisory Committee attends regularly at the meetings of the Research Committee, and there is no overlapping in regard to the work of the Imperial Institute. On the publicity side, the director of the Imperial Institute is the chairman of the Board, and there is no overlapping in regard to the work. The chief association between the Imperial Institute and the Empire Marketing Board is in regard to the exhibition of scientific films, and both those bodies work together for scientific and educational purposes. I have visited the Imperial Institute, and I have seen the Marketing Board at work in the cinemas, and, if we could develop throughout the Empire and oversea the exhibition of more scientific films instead of the criminological films which are so frequently seen on the screens, I believe that we should be doing admirable work. Scientific films are of the utmost importance to agriculture and to science,
and generally, they are of the greatest assistance. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton seems to be under a misconception as to the value of the work and the policy now being carried out by the Empire Marketing Board.
There is one aspect of the Empire Marketing Board about which I am not very happy. On previous occasions when this Vote has been considered, there has always been a Suspense Account, and this is the first occasion when that account has not appeared in the Estimates. As some of the Committees are in a position of disquietude as to what is intended in regard to the finances of the Empire Marketing Board, I would like to have some assurance on this point. We have heard of £1,000,000 a year being available, but the Empire Marketing Board has never spent £1,000,000 a year. The Board works under a properly controlled and regulated system, and it only spends money upon carefully considered schemes which have to satisfy the Secretary of State, who remains responsible for such expenditure.
We have always understood that that board did not want £1,000,000, and that if it had useful means of spending £1,000,000 that sum would be available. There is no indication to that effect in the Vote as presented to us this year, to say nothing of the unspent balances from previous years. I can foresee the bringing forward of some very important schemes for scientific work which will require increased finance, and, if those new schemes are to be met by cutting down the useful work which is already being done, and by switching the expenditure on to new projects, that policy is bound to hamper the proper activities of the board. In many respects, we are very much behind other countries, and therefore it is essential, even if we expect to keep level with other countries in our efforts, that more money should be spent.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the policy of the Government with regard to financial provision for the Empire Marketing Board in the future? We have heard something in this debate concerning the Agenda of the Imperial Conference. We have been told that economic questions loom very largely in the Agenda, and that a whole range of sub-
jects will be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) asked how the dependent Empire was going to be represented at the Imperial Conference in reference to economic questions. It is necessary that all sections of the Empire should be represented. I remember that in 1923 economic questions had a large significance at the Imperial Conference, and arrangements were made whereby those familiar with the economic conditions of the various groups of Colonies were formed into a sort of ad hoc committee to assist the Secretary of State in presenting their views to the Imperial Economic Conference.
Ever since that time there have been representations from various people interested in Colonial activities to the effect that their interests cannot be left entirely to the Secretary of State to be dealt with at those conferences. Take, for example, such questions as the relations between Canada and the West Indies. Those two countries are now intertwined in a special commercial agreement, and the agreement has been made between the West Indies Government and the Government of the Dominion of Canada. If a question like that arises at the Conference it is only right that those countries should be directly represented. I hope that the spirit of the speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the Colonial Office Conference will be borne in mind by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when he is drawing up the Agenda for the Imperial Economic Conference. We have been told that the trade of the Colonial Empire exceeds that of the Dominions, and that 50,000,000 people in different parts of the Empire are represented at the Imperial Conference by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain. I think it is right that at the forthcoming Conference the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs should set up some organisation whereby the Colonial Empire can be adequately represented at the Imperial Conference.
I wish to ask what is to be the exact position of the self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia at the forthcoming Conference. I am aware that, under the constitution of that colony, certain matters are reserved, and are dealt with by the Secretary of State for Dominion
Affairs, but this is the only opportunity we have of making any reference to Southern Rhodesia. I want to know whether the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs is going to be assisted at the forthcoming Imperial Conference by any representative of the Southern Rhodesian Government, or whether a Commissioner from Southern Rhodesia has been invited to take any part in the preparation of the agenda, or has been consulted upon any matters to be placed before the approaching Conference. I think it is important that both those points should be cleared up.
The position of the whole of our Colonial Empire is becoming of more importance, and the questions which arise are common problems, economic and social. I think it is very important that the Imperial Conference should not have the appearance of merely discussing economic questions relating to certain Dominions and Great Britain. It is of the greatest importance that the whole Empire should be envisaged when we are dealing with economic questions. Besides political and constitutional questions, the interests of the dependent Empire ought to find a place in the discussions with our self-governing Dominions. They still stand in a special relationship to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, but on all other questions it is essential, to my mind, that their claims to be heard, their claims to be adequately represented, should be preferred, and should be preferred in a manner which is agreeable to them, in view of their great importance, their great resources, and the general part which they play in the economy of the Empire as a whole. I have raised these two points in the hope that the Under-Secretary, in enlightening me, will be able to say something which will reassure the whole Colonial Empire that, at the Conference for which his chief is now preparing both the agenda and the personnel, their interests will not be overlooked by the Government, and that they will be considered as they should be considered.

Mr. LUNN: This has been a very interesting debate, and, although at the beginning the Chairman ruled rather narrowly, as some hon. Members thought, it is remarkable how expert hon. Members can be in overcoming even a narrow
Ruling of the Chair. The discussion has not, perhaps, been so wide as the promoters of the debate would have liked it to be, but, nevertheless, we have had a fairly wide discussion upon the Dominions Office Vote and upon the Empire Marketing Board. I have heard every word of the debate, and have been struck by the remarkable way in which one hon. Member has cancelled out or answered the speech of the previous speaker. Perhaps the best illustration of that has been provided by the last two speeches. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), in the first part of his speech, dealt with the points made by the previous speaker, and, having had the experience of being on the Empire Marketing Board since its beginning, he was able to give an answer to the questions which were put by the hon. Member who preceded him.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that perhaps I ought to explain that I did so because I was Chairman of the Publicity Committee for the first four years of the existence of the Empire Marketing Board, and I felt it necessary, not merely to speak, but, in view of the statements that were made, to defend my own policy.

Mr. LUNN: Since, as the right hon. Gentleman said, practically the same policy is being carried out by the Empire Marketing Board to-day, the right hon. Gentleman has answered for my position as well on that matter. After all, it is as well that in the House we can have days off, as it were, and discuss subjects upon which there is common agreement. It would not be to the advantage or benefit of us all if every day we were discussing points upon which we were far away from agreement as parties, and there is no doubt that there is a good deal of agreement between all parties on the points that have been raised in this debate. There is no disagreement in the House as to the anxiety of all parties for the development of the British Empire, and of those parts of the British Empire which we know as the British Commonwealth. Although we may differ as to the method of bringing about that development, I think I can safely say that we are all anxious, even if we do not believe in what is called Empire Free Trade, for freer and more abundant trade between all parts of the Empire, and
whatever can be done in that direction will have the co-operation and encouragement of the present Government.
Those who have heard the debate will have noticed that there have not been very many new suggestions since the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He dealt with the Imperial Conference, and I can only repeat his statement that no question will be ruled out from the agenda of the Imperial Conference which it is considered would bear upon the welfare of the Empire; and, as the subjects will not be settled by this country, but suggestions are coming from the Dominions as well as from this country, there is no reason why any question that is of interest to any part of the Dominions or to the home Government should not be discussed on that occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman raised two points regarding representation. As regards Southern Rhodesia, I think I might mention here that the representation of Southern Rhodesia has not yet been settled, because we have not yet had the opinion of Southern Rhodesia as to who should represent their interests at the Conference. As to the representation of the Colonial Empire, its interests will be looked after in the first instance by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will be taking part in the discussion on the Estimates for the Colonial Office, and I would ask him to put his question on that occasion, when, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may be able to give him some information on that particular matter.
Before I deal with other matters relating to the Imperial Conference and the Empire Marketing Board, I should like to refer to one point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton), as to the change which has taken place recently in Southern Rhodesia in connection with the Land Apportionment Act. Southern Rhodesia is a self-governing Colony, but it is not altogether a Dominion in the sense in which Canada, or Australia, or the Union of South Africa is a Dominion, and there are certain matters especially concerning the welfare and interests of the natives which are reserved. I would point out to my hon. Friend that, if the Committee could understand the
smallness of the matter that he has raised, they would see that it does not mean quite so much as his remarks would appear to indicate. I am not objecting to his raising it, and I intend to deal with it, because it is as well that it should be cleared up, especially after the steps that have been taken by many of my hon. Friends to call attention to it in a very high quarter during recent weeks.
In Southern Rhodesia there are, I believe, not more than 100,000,000 acres of land, and, prior to the grant of the Letters Patent in 1923, there were 21,500,000 acres reserved for native requirements. I do not think that anyone will doubt my statement when I say that those reserves, as reserves, are adequate, and will be for some time to come. The Letters Patent granted in 1923 did, however, lay down the question of equality as between the natives and the Europeans in the purchase of land. I am as strongly in favour of equality between all peoples as any Member of the House, and as desirous of securing the best interests of the natives. It was laid down that there should be equality as between natives and Europeans in the purchase of land for individual tenure, but it was also stated at the same time that, if it was found that this did not work out quite satisfactorily, the matter could be raised later.
It was soon shown that it did not work out quite satisfactorily, and, indeed, before 18 months had elapsed after the Letters Patent had been granted, it was found that 31,000,000 acres of land had been purchsed by Europeans, and only 45,000 acres had been purchased by natives; and, as it was apparent that the whole of the land was going to be, as I should say, "collared" by the Europeans, the Legislature and the Government realised that some steps must be taken and the Land Commission was appointed early in 1925, That Commission went into the question of the future of the remaining land in Southern Rhodesia and heard evidence from 233 European witnesses and over 1,700 native witnesses. As a result of its inquiry, it reported, and its finding was accepted by the Government of Southern Rhodesia, that the land should be apportioned—that the 31,000,000 acres which had been purchased by Europeans should be extended to a total of 48,000,000 acres——

Mr. MACPHERSON: There was to be no differentiation in the price of the land?

Mr. LUNN: I cannot say what the position was in regard to differentiation of price, though I am quite sure that there would be differentiation of quality in the land of Southern Rhodesia; but Europeans were to be able to purchase up to 48,000,000 acres, and the natives, who had 21,500,000 acres as reserves, were to be able to purchase another 7,500,000 acres. As the natives had only purchased 45,000 acres, and the Europeans had purchased 31,000,000 acres, it was considered, by everyone who has looked into the matter, including my predecessor, who went fully into it, and also the previous Secretary of State, that this method of dealing wilth the matter could not be objected to. The Land Apportionment Bill introduced in the Legislature provides for that allocation, and reserves for future allocation 17,800,000 acres, which can be dealt with later by a further Commission, as the Premier of Southern Rhodesia has foreshadowed, to be set up when the question arises. Although I agree with the sentiment expressed in Section 43 of the Letters Patent, that there should be equality of opportunity for both native and European, not only in the matter of land purchase, but in all other matters, I think that what has been done is in the best interests of the natives of Southern Rhodesia. With regard to the Amendment inserted in the Land Apportionment Bill, about which my hon. Friend asked, that was not an Amendment of substance, but was only one of form.

Mr. BUXTON: I did not ask about an Amendment in the Land Purchase Bill, but I asked what was the Amendment in Clause 43 of the Constitution. That was the Amendment that was alluded to.

Mr. LUNN: I am afraid I cannot say just now what was the Amendment in Clause 43, but the Amendment in the Land Apportionment Act was one to secure for the natives equal rights with the Europeans; it was only to insert words to make that matter clear. I hope I have dealt with the matter satisfactorily to my hon. Friend.

Mr. BUXTON: Will my hon. Friend be good enough at some time to give us the effect of the Amendment to Clause 43?

Mr. LUNN: I will do that with pleasure, because I feel much concern about this question, and have devoted a good deal of time to it, having been most anxious for a long time to see what were the effects of it, how far it went, and whether or not it was against the interests of the natives, because I personally was very anxious to see that it was not against their interests.
Coming to the questions that have been put to me this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford, who is a member of the Publicity Committee of the Empire Marketing Board, and is quite a good supporter of the Board, having answered two or three of the criticisms which had been made by his right hon. Friend, put to me a question which had been raised before by the late Secretary of State, and which was answered by my right hon. Friend. I will give a further answer, which is perhaps of a more definite character. The right hon. Gentleman asked if any steps had been taken, on the lines of the suggestion of the Secretary of State last year, to secure the attendance at the Imperial Conference of representatives other than members of Governments. Only a very short time ago—I have not the actual date, but it was during this year—a question was asked of fire Prime Minister as to whether he would consider extending invitations to the Leaders of the Opposition parties in the Dominions, and the Prime Minister replied:
The suggestion that Imperial Conferences should not be confined to representatives of parties in office for the time being is one which has been made from time to time in the past, and I myself in 1924 put it forward tentatively to the Prime Ministers of the Dominions in an official communication. It will be seen from the correspondence which took place on that occasion, and which was published in Command Paper No. 2301 of 1925, that the suggestion did not meet with support, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by its being made again at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1929; col, 2028, Vol. 231.]
I do not think I could give an answer more substantial than that given by the Prime Minister, nor could I possibly take up the case again after what has been said to-day.

Mr. HURD: Was there not a supplementary question put to the Prime Minister on that occasion?

Mr. LUNN: It is possible that there was later, at all events it has been raised later, and the Prime Minister referred the hon. Member to the answer he had given, which I have read.
I am now able to answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland. Clause 43 of the Southern Rhodesia Letters Patent was amended in such a way as not to repeal the existing Section, but so as to add a new Sub-section to permit of the scheme provided in the Lands Apportionment Act to be brought into operation.
The hon. Gentleman was not very enthusiastic in support of migration. I appreciate that very much, because it is difficult to become enthusiastic at this moment with conditions as they are in different parts of the Empire. The question was first raised by the hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) after the Secretary of State has spoken, and I, as Chairman of the Overseas Settlement Committee, am very much concerned with the figures of migration as they are likely to be in 1930. They went up last year, so far as Canada was concerned, largely because of the £10 ocean rate which had been arranged my predecessor, Lord Lovat, and which has been one of the best passenger arrangements that has been made and one which I hope is going to be continued in the future. 1930 is not very hopeful as far as we can see, and, though there is a separate Vote for Overseas Settlement, which can be brought forward on some other occasion if hon. Members desire, I was pleased as Under-Secretary to hear my right hon. Friend say that over-sea settlement will be an important subject at the Imperial Conference and that it will be discussed, not in any narrow aspect, but in the widest possible aspect, as to how far it will be possible to increase the number of people who go to the immigrating countries which have taken our people for generations. To give one illustration, the 3,500 settlers of 1820, it might safely be said, laid the basis of the British population in South Africa and, as we know that 98 per cent. of the population of Australia are British, we can only hope that those
who desire to go from this country should have facilities provided for them.
It is not that we want to send unemployables, and our unemployed are not unemployable. They are anxious to work and, if they had money of their own, they would not come for Government assistance, but they would go overseas, as they did before the War when there was no assistance, in larger numbers than they have gone since the War and since the Empire Settlement Act has been in operation. At the same time, the Empire Settlement Act has created a wonderful impression between this country and the Dominions and many of the hardships that were known to those who went before the War are avoided and, no doubt settlement has been done on much better lines since the Act was passed than ever before. But at this moment it is not just in that state that we should like to see it, and I am hopeful that, although 1930 may not be a year of hope, there is a future, and we have not just to think of this matter for the moment, but to try to think of the days to come, and I hope and believe that more people will have the opportunity and that the Dominions will be able to settle more people satisfactorily than is the case at the moment.
Then a number of suggestions were made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) dealing with inter-Imperial trade and trade between this country and other parts of the world. I do not know that I can say more than the Secretary of State has said, that these matters naturally will all be of the first importance at the Imperial Conference and will be discussed. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire put four points to me, whether or not tariffs are to be excluded from the Imperial Conference, whether import boards will be discussed, whether or not currency will be raised and whether all the bodies which deal with Empire development will be co-ordinated. If he had heard my right hon. Friend he would know that the first, and second are likely subjects and that he is not clear whether the third will be raised specifically, but he felt that it could within the agenda that is now being arranged. So far as I understand, there will be an opportunity before the House rises for the Adjournment for Members to be made aware
what is the agreed agenda up to that time. The other matter is not so much altogether one for the Imperial Conference, but it is an important matter for the Government of this country and, without doubt, they themselves ought to take steps to see that bodies that deal with the same matter should be co-ordinated and there should be an understanding between them so that we should know where to go if we want to know what is taking place.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) criticised the Empire Marketing Board and he thought the money spent on publicity was a gross waste. I differ entirely from that point of view. I believe the Empire Marketing Board has raised the standard of art posters throughout the country. In London the Underground Railway has done a good deal in that matter. We have no Underground Railway in the North of England and we have not posters of that character, but we have 1,800 frames of the Empire Marketing Board throughout the country and people are getting an opportunity to see, not what is in the mind of one artist. There are a large number of artists responsible for these posters and they have not only raised the standard of posters but they have done a great deal to create an impression of the connection between the United Kingdom and the Governments overseas that was never done before. With regard to one poster that the hon. Member alluded to, "The Empire Stands for Peace," there has been a change of Government and a General Election and, while it was not a Member of the Government, so far as I know, and certainly not myself, who made the suggestion as to the poster, I think all members of the Publicity Committee certainly agreed that it was a great idea to publish it just at the time of Armistice Day. There is a good deal of sentiment in the Empire Marketing Board and there was great sentimental value in that set of posters published at that time. But I have no knowledge that the Empire Marketing Board is exhibiting these posters in other parts of the world. I do not know that we have frames in any part of the Dominions.

Mr. MANDER: This matter is dealt with on page 83 of the report. It says:
The Board has now a certain number of posters in the United Kingdom and specimen frames have also been erected in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the British West Indies.
It says that in certain Dominions it is not only British goods that are being advertised, but the goods sent from one Dominion to another—paid for by us, but not our goods being advertised.

Mr. LUNN: We are doing such good work that we have no object in sending samples to other parts of the Empire. I can quite understand that frames have been sent abroad in order to show what we are doing in this country to encourage the purchase of Empire goods by our people. As a matter of fact, we have a wonderful film of the Empire Marketing Board and we are sending a copy of it to other parts of the Empire and the appreciation we have had, particularly from Canada, as to its value has well repaid us for sending it. The Empire Marketing Board lays down its policy, but Empire buying begins at home. We have taken steps in all our publicity to see that home produce should be given the first place, and much of the money that has been spent on publicity has been spent on advertising home productions. But there are many things the Empire Marketing Board Publicity Committee is doing besides putting posters on boards in different parts of the country. Valuable work is being done with the young, and there are 21,000 school teachers who desire copies of all the literature that is produced by the Board, and they much appreciate it. Most of us would say, if we cannot obtain the goods we require from home production, we should purchase goods within the Empire if we want the reciprocity which has been urged so much to-day.
8.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman put a question regarding the finance of the Empire Marketing Board. The Board, which was started in 1926, was to be guaranteed £1,000,000 a year, but it has never spent £1,000,000. In the first year, it only spent about £132,000, and I do not think up to this year it has ever spent £500,000. But what would be the position with the balance supposed to be reserved for future requirements? That balance over from last year was £1,550,000. In Decem-
ber last a discussion took place at the Empire Marketing Board upon this matter, and it was quite naturally understood and suggested by the Estimates Committee that the Empire Marketing Board should come to Parliament and ask for the money that it was estimated it would require in the coming year. Parliament never hesistated to grant the money that was placed on the Estimates for the use of the Empire Marketing Board. In December, it was estimated that we should require £550,000 for this financial year, together with the balance from last year, which was estimated to be £250,000, or £800,000 for the year. The Board were quite satisfied, in the discussion which took place between the Secretary of State and the Board, after discussion with the Treasury, that they could meet the requirements of the Board for this year. I am not so sure that the balance is likely to be £250,000, it may be less than that amount, and that may necessitate coming to the House for a Supplementary Estimate in order to meet the needs of the Board. As to the question of the balance, as that is a matter which is to be dealt with between the Board and the Treasury I am not able to give a definite answer at this moment.
I hope that nothing will be done to curb the work of the Empire Marketing Board and not only in its publicity, because that is only £250,000 a year, while on research grants we are spending over £500,000 a year. The work that has been done, and is being done, by the Empire Marketing Board in scientific research is some of the most valuable work that is being done with regard to disease and pests and wastage of the food produce of the world. I hope nothing will be done in any way to injure the work that is going on so far as research is concerned. It is work for which we cannot definitely say how much will be wanted in any one year. It is largely a matter in which we have to look ahead and cover a number of years. I am pleased that the debate has taken place on the Empire Marketing Board and that we have beard all that we have heard to-day in the way of appreciation and criticism. After all, if members have criticisms, they ought to bring them forward, even of a Board like this. There is a danger of money being squandered and wasted. I myself,
as Chairman of the Publicity Committee, immediately took up one point where thought money was being squandered. I am not sure even now that it is being spent as carefully as it might be. I do not object to criticism that is in the interests of the taxpayers and directed to seeing that money is spent wisely and well. I hope the Empire Marketing Board will be able to take up many suggestions that have been made this afternoon as to what the Board can do in the way of developing trade between this country and other parts of the Empire. Whatever can be done in that direction which will be helpful to our country and to the people of the Dominions ought to be taken up and encouraged by every one of us. I am satisfied with the debate that has taken place, and I feet no doubt that we shall now get our Vote.
In my opinion there has never been a year when the bonds of Empire have been stronger than they appear to be in 1930. We have heard during the past few weeks of a young girl from my county who has flown across the world to Australia and who is being received in every part of Australia with enthusiasm. That is bound to have its effect, not only on Australia but on this country. To-morrow we shall be wanting tickets to go to Lords to see the opening of the second Test Match. Australia has lost the first, but they are hoping to win the next two or three. They are creating a wonderful impression in this country. The Imperial Conference which is to be held will strengthen the economic relations between this country and the Dominions. I hope it will do much for our common welfare. I would like to say, as my last word, that I believe that the greatest instrument for peace in the world is the British Empire.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I have no desire to stand for more than a very few moments between the hon. Gentleman and his Vote. I would like to congratulate him on the unusual, but I think very practical, way in which he finished his speech, and the remarks he made on the development of inter-Empire feeling which is coming about as the result of sporting events. There is no Member of this House who has taken a greater interest than the hon. Gentleman in the matter of migration. There is almost no Member who has devoted so much time
to it. I am bound to say, however, that those of us who look back over the history of migration in the last few years cannot but feel that it is extremely disappointing that the results of the Oversea Settlement Act have been so meagre. I do not think that this is a matter for the apportionment of blame. I know that there is a special Vote in connection with migration, and I have no intention of going into details. I only want to follow it in a few sentences to the extent raised by the hon. Gentleman. At a suitable opportunity, perhaps, the Government will be able to tell us that they are seriously considering what further measures can be taken to help migration and to put on a batter footing the work of the Oversea Settlement Act. While believing that, I think the hon. Gentleman should consider once again the proposal that has been put before the House in a Bill by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. A. Somerville). That Bill would co-ordinate the work of all the charitable bodies with that of the Government in the matter of migration, and I think we should see very different results in a short time. For the reasons which I have given, I do not propose to follow the matter to-night.
It seems to me to be perfectly natural, in a debate of this kind, that the House should concentrate principally on the forthcoming Imperial Conference. We must be grateful to the Liberal party, who raised this issue to-day, because we have had from the Secretary of State for the Dominions a very remarkable statement of what is going to happen at the Imperial Conference, and for that statement alone the debate has been of great value. I understand that the Secretary of State has made it quite clear that no subject cognate to the Dominions and the Empire generally will be excluded from the Imperial Conference. If that be so, it is perfectly clear to every one in this Committee that tariffs cannot possibly be excluded, because the Government of the day may wish to exclude them; it is perfectly certain that the Dominions will raise that matter at once. I do hope that, whatever form the discussions will take, this country—and I use the word "country," because the question is not a party question at all—will be prepared to consider and acquiesce in the necessity of setting up a
permanent body, an economic body, not appointed by the Government of this country, or even appointed by Great Britain, but appointed by the Imperial Conference and acting under the orders of Imperial Conference, responsible to the Imperial Conference, and reporting regularly to the different parts of the Empire.
There has been, if I may say so—and I sat for some years as a member of the Imperial Economic Committee—a little confusion between the functions of the Imperial Economic Committee and those of the Empire Marketing Board, perhaps not unnatural to those who have not followed the two bodies very closely. The work of the Imperial Economic Committee will be of immense value, but what I visualise in the future is something a great deal stronger than the Imperial Economic Committee as it exists to-day. I think the probabilities are that the coming Imperial Conference will require the setting un of a permanent body to advise and recommend what form of preferential treatment is necessary, not only between Great Britain and the different Dominions of the Empire, but also between Dominion and Dominion and between the great Colonial Empire and the Dominions. I think that that body will do what I really believe Members of all sides of the House would wish to be done—the raising of the whole question of Empire preference and tariffs out of party politics altogether. I am positive that as a result of discussions which must take place at the forthcoming Imperial Conference there will be the setting up of some body of this kind.
Quite true, it can only give recommendations, because the fiscal freedom of every part of the Empire must be maintained, but all the same, a body of that kind, sitting permanently and studying this question from the purely economic point of view, quite apart from party politics and from politics altogether, would be in an immensely strong position. It surely would arrive at such a position of standing and authority that it would be essential that the different parts of the Empire which were not able to put its recommendations into force should give the very strongest reasons to the rest of the Empire why they could not do so. I believe that that is a suggestion which is bound to be made before the
coming Imperial Conference, and I hope very sincerely, without asking for an answer at the present time, that the Government will very seriously consider the possibility of the suggestion being made before the Conference meets, and will, if it is made, approach it in the very widest non-party spirit.
There is one other point on which I want to touch for one moment, and that is in connection with the question which has also been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby)—the currency question, which is bound to come up at this forthcoming Conference. I do not want to go into the whole question, which is also bound to arise, because there is, as the Committee knows, a Committee already sitting, appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to deal with these matters or to make recommendations so far as Great Britain is concerned. The point I particularly want to bring before the notice of the Government is that here again it is very desirable that we should have the recommendations of the present Committee before the meeting of the Imperial Conference. These recommendations should be available for the members of the Imperial Conference, because upon them it may alone be possible to set up an Imperial currency policy.
It is clear to those who have studied this problem that unless and until we can produce an Imperial currency policy we shall continually be faced with difficulties between one part of the British Empire and another. There is not the slightest reason why the difficulties between Great Britain and some other parts of the world in regard to currency and credit which necessarily face us, should equally face us as between Great Britain and different parts of the Dominions. This matter should be settled by common agreement. I hope that there again the Government will be prepared, in view of the Committee which is now sitting, to face the problem and also to have it raised at the Imperial Conference. Although in this debate matters relating to the Dominions and to the Colonies have of necessity been somewhat mixed up, I think that we have had, in the reply of the Secretary of State, a most satisfactory statement regarding the Imperial Conference, and I only hope that the House and the
Government will be prepared for the very numerous subjects which are bound to be raised when the Conference meets.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Before we pass from this Vote, I should like to raise a matter which has been suggested to me in consequence of the presence of the Postmaster-General. The Post Office is regarded by successive Governments as a means of making profit. I would suggest to the Secretary of State that his Department should use their influence to induce the Post Office not to regard circumstances in that light when they are dealing with such questions as Empire communications by cable, wireless and telephone, and to take a more far-seeing and broad-minded view of this great Imperial matter than that of simply making a profit. The two Departments should work together and should not regard themselves as being watertight. The Dominions Office should infuse the Post Office with an Imperial spirit, and I hope that this great question will be fully discusesd at the Imperial Conference.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £98,306, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."—[Note: £49,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. FOOT: I wish to take the opportunity upon this Vote of raising a matter which has been very prominently before the country during the last week or fortnight and dealt with by Ministers in a number of replies to questions put by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I want to raise the question of the position in Malta, having regard to the answer which was made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday of this week, and the further answer which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking for the Prime Minister, in the House this afternoon. I regard this question as being one of the highest possible im-
portance affecting this country and our general Imperial relations. In dealing with this matter, it will be necessary for me to ask the patience of the Committee so that I may, first of all, show how the position has arisen, and ask the Committee to consider the proposals which have been made to deal with the very difficult situation with which we are now confronted.
Malta is governed under a constitution set up in the year 1921, and I understand that it has 32 Members of Parliament. These Members, it is interesting to note, are elected under a system of proportional representation—I commend the example to this country—and the electorate numbers about 50,000. I understand that were it not for the system of proportional representation in Malta the situation there would be very much more acute than it is at the present time. When the election of 1927 took place, Lord Strickland, who was formerly a Member of this House, and his party were successful at the polls, and from that time up to the present time there have been many and increasing difficulties. It may be said that those difficulties commenced with a question which arose in relation to the proposed deportation of a priest from the island. Yesterday, in another place—I have no right to refer to the details of the discussion—a statement was made by Lord Strickland which I commend to the attention of the Committee.
I do not think it would be right for me to ask the Committee to spend time in looking back upon the details of that case. Difficulties did arise, and they have become more and more acute in the last two or three years. Early last year there was a desire on all sides that these difficulties, if possible, should be met. The suggestion was made that the Vatican might send a representative to the Island to make a close and careful inquiry into the circumstances so that, if possible, a concordat might be arrived at between the rival parties. The delegate who was selected and given the great title of the Delegate Apostolic was Mgr. Robinson. He came to the Island on the 3rd April last year, and he left the Island on the 29th May last year. He made many inquiries, and interviewed all the
parties concerned. This investigation made by Mgr. Robinson was pressed for by our authorities, so that the differences between the two parties in Malta might, if possible, be settled before the election of 1930 arose.
Following upon that has arisen the correspondence with the Holy See relating to Maltese affairs with which, I expect, most hon. Members are acquainted. A most remarkable document was presented to Parliament only a few days ago. It might be asked, why should it be a Foreign Office document, seeing that it dealt with a British colony? The answer is that when the Constitution was set up in 1921 there were certain reservations made in the Constitution, one of which was that in the British Government remained all responsibility for negotiations and communications with any foreign State. The Vatican, besides being the representative of a great religious organisation, is, of course, a foreign State, and it is as well to remember this fact in the course of any discussions which may take place later on in this House.
There followed this correspondence, occupying something like 94 pages contained in a Blue Book. The correspondence sets out the history of the difficulties. Declarations were made to the British Government from the Ambassador, Mr. Chilton, whose conduct throughout has been altogether admirable. Acting for the British Government, he has found it necessary to use terms in relation to the diplomacy of the Vatican which, I think, must seem very strange in the history of diplomatic correspondence, certainly of recent years. It has been necessary for the representative of this country to tell the representative of the Vatican that their action has been discourteous, and it has been necessary for him to say that the action of the Vatican has been reprehensible. Let me quote a passage from page 88. One knows that diplomatic language is generally very suave, words are used that are gentle, and there is great care taken that the susceptibilities shall not be offended. That makes even more remarkable the words contained in the statement handed by Mr. Chilton to the Cardinal Secretary of State:
These acts"—
he is speaking of the acts of the Vatican—
seem in the highest degree reprehensible to His Majesty's Government, who must protest against them in the most emphatic manner.
It is necessary for me to refer to that correspondence so that I may lead up to the present situation, and we may be able to weigh the proposals that the Government are taking to deal with it. The impression left upon my mind after reading and re-reading the Blue Book is that behind the action of the representatives of the Vatican there was prevarication, deliberate prevarication, that in many cases the diplomacy seemed to be rather slippery diplomacy, and that frequently there was a very unfortunate economy so far as truth was concerned, deserving the words used in another place, that those who represented the Vatican in this matter have behaved on more than one occasion with insolence. That word is not used in the first place by myself, but was used by one who was formerly a Member of this House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want unduly to interfere with the right of the hon. Member to raise this question. He is entitled to raise the merits of the question in so far as it relates to the Colonial Office, but such matters as concern the Foreign Office and are outside the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office will not be in order on this Vote.

Mr. FOOT: I appreciate the correction, but may I submit that the action of the Colonial Office has been determined by the condition of affairs that has arisen in Malta. We are not in a position to express an opinion in this House upon the decision that has been arrived at by His Majesty's Government and the Colonial Office unless we can see how the present position has arisen.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I have said, I do not want unduly to restrict the hon. Member's opportunity of raising this question, but it is always a matter of difficulty for the Chairman in Committee of Supply to avoid forming a bad precedent. This Vote must be kept strictly to the colonial aspect of the situation or, at any rate, to that part of it for which the Colonial Office is responsible. I appreciate the difficulty of the hon. Member, but he must also appreciate my difficulty in seeking not to create a bad precedent.

Mr. FOOT: If in my subsequent remarks I offend against the Rules of Order I shall be perfectly willing at once loyally to accept your Ruling. I will, if I may, honestly keep to this line, and I will simply relate the circumstances so that, if possible, the Committee may consider whether the course, the very remarkable course, of suspending the Constitution in Malta has been justified by what has happened. It will be necessary for me to deal particularly with that abrupt and very necessary act which was very reluctantly taken by His Majesty's Government. From the correspondence two facts have emerged. The first was the repeated statement by His Majesty's Minister that the real source of the difficulty was the intense participation in politics in Malta on the part of the priests. The next was that there was a threat of ex-communication against those who refused to support the candidates of a particular party, and the third was the demand by the representatives of the Vatican for the removal of Lord Strickland, himself a Roman Catholic, the Prime Minister of that Island. That was made clear on page 62 of the correspondence, where Mr. Chilton sends to the Foreign Secretary extracts from an interview which he had with the representative of the Vatican. He says:
It looks, therefore, as if there is no hope whatsoever of inducing the Vatican to intervene with the Bishops with a view to instructing the priests not to interfere in political affairs, and still less of initiating concordat negotiations so long as Lord Strickland is in power.
The concluding words of the Blue Book are remarkable, and I draw the attention of the Committee to them because I think they are words that were very necessary to be said, and very rightly said. In concluding the correspondence in the Blue Book His Majesty's Government use these words:
Instead of this they"—
that is, the Vatican—
have now refused to take, as far as concerns them, the steps necessary for the restoration of a normal political life in Malta, whilst, before that, they had delayed many months the long promised negotiations for defining the relations between Church and State in the Island, and finally rendered them impossible by a condition as to the personality of the Head of the Maltese administration, which constitutes nothing less than a claim to interfere in the domestic politics of a British Colony.
It is with these words that the Book closes, and I want to express my profound gratitude and pride that during this difficult time the best tradition of this country has been upheld by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He has been subjected to criticism. He was criticised yesterday. It has been said that unusual words have been introduced into this diplomacy. There were unusual words because a very unusual situation had arisen. I believe that in the course of that correspondence the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has very properly——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that we cannot discuss the action of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on this Vote. I am quite prepared to allow as much liberty as I can to the hon. Member, so far as it can be allowed under this Vote. If the general question has to be raised, there are other Parliamentary means of raising it. We must restrict the subject of discussion to this Vote.

Mr. FOOT: I think I shall be able to say what I have to say without any further reference to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The reason why the Foreign Office appears in this matter is that in the Constitution that was set up for the Colony there was a reservation to the Foreign Office of the conduct of the foreign affairs of the Colony. Let me get back to the question of the difficulties which have arisen. In the early part of this year there was to have been an election, and just before the election a pastoral letter was issued, which is set out in the Blue Book. That pastoral letter was published by the Bishops of Malta and Gozo at the very last moment. Our representatives had asked again and again that there should be a settlement of this problem, but they had been held off. The thing had been postponed again and again until, just on the eve of the elections, when it would do most damage, the thunderbolt was hurled at the Maltese people. A declaration was made in what is called the pastoral letter, telling the Maltese people that when they went into the polling booth, first of all they were bound to vote, and that when they did vote it would be a mortal sin if they voted for Lord Strickland or
any candidate belonging to his party or to the Labour Party. It told them that it would be a mortal sin if any one of them stood as a candidate for that party, and that it would be a mortal sin if they failed to vote for the candidates of the other party. At the same time, threats of excommunication were made, and a ban was put on the Government newspaper to the effect that any one reading, distributing or selling a newspaper belonging to that party was likely to be excommunicated, with bankruptcy threatened to those who own the newspapers.
On the eve of the election those who went to confess their sins to the priests were asked first the question, "Do you intend to vote for Strickland and his party" If he said "Yes," then he had to go away with his sins unconfessed and absolution refused. That is what has happened in the year of grace 1530. It may be that in this country we do not attach much importance to it, but in Malta a great deal of importance is attached to it. To devout and faithful people it means that if they exercise the first right of a free citizen they are denying themselves the forgiveness of sins, the grace that comes in baptism, the grace and the blessing which come with the benediction of the church upon marriage, and consolation of religion for the dying. They are threatened with the pains of eternal punishment. That is what it meant, and it justifies the action of the Government. These poor people, these devout people, were to be cut off from the resources of divine grace because they did not favour the particular nominee of this party; they were to be separated from the church, militant and triumphant, because they exercised the first right of a free citizen in the British Empire. We were discussing in this House a few months ago the Blasphemy Bill. This claim is worse blasphemy than that which was ever sold at the kiosks of Paris or reprinted in the columns of the "Times" newspaper telling us something of the horrors of blasphemy under Soviet rule.
I want the Committee to realise the position if this had been done in this country. The basis of our Imperial splendour and greatness is this, that we give to any British citizen in distant lands what we would demand for the British citizen in London. Macaulay
said of Burke that oppression in Bengal was the same thing to him as oppression in the streets of London. That is our first demand. We demand that these people when they go into the polling booth shall be able to go as freely and with as full protection as any citizen in any constituency in this country. If this threat had been made in any constituency in this country the man who made it would lay himself open to the punishment of our laws. Let me read the Section of the Act of Parliament. In the Corrupt Practices Act you will find these words:
Any person who directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person indicts or threatens to inflict any …. spiritual injury …. upon …. any person in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting shall be guilty of a corrupt practice.
Under that Act the offender could be sent to prison for 12 months or fined £200. Why is that not applicable to the Archbishop of Malta and the Bishop of Gozo? It is not applicable because they are not subject to the law. Under the constitution of that island they are not amenable to the law, and being above the law they have denied the rights of the law to others. This threatened ex-communication was not the irresponsible action of a few excited ecclesiastics. It was an action which had the manifest approval of the Vatican, and has been endorsed since. I want to ask this plain question. What was done there was either right or wrong. If it was right to do it in Malta it is right to do it in this country. If it is asked why it is not done here while it is done in Malta, the answer is because they have not the power to do it here, but they have the power to do it there. Then came the attempt at the assassination of Lord Strickland, which happily he escaped. Requests were made to one of the bishops that in the church the people might return thanks to Almighty God for his deliverance. The request was refused. In earlier days, when on St. Bartholomew's Day Huguenot blood ran in the streets of Paris, and Admiral Coligny lay stabbed to death, when it is said that Philip of Spain laughed for the first and only time in his life, the streets of Rome were illuminated and the Te Deum sung in St. Peter's. No Te Deum is allowed to be sung when the Prime Minister of Malta escapes assassination. The postponement
of the election was inevitable. The action of the bishops would not have mattered here or to any people with the New Testament in their hands, but there it was a threat of grave importance. It was cowardly to use innocent people in order to get back upon Lord Strickland. They should have fought it out with him. These shepherds should not have done it at the expense of those who were their flock. We are confronted with a deadlock, and I am going to suggest that the Government has taken the only and right course in dealing with it. They might have gone back to Crown Colony government, but I am glad they did not do so. I received a reply from the Prime Minister two days ago. Let me read it:
In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government with considerable reluctance have decided that they have no alternative but to sanction a temporary suspension of the Constitution. The necessary legislation to give effect to this decision will be submitted to His Majesty in Council at an early date. The effect will be to place as an emergency measure the full legislative and executive authority in the hands of the Governor. The existing Ministry will, however, be retained in office and will be available in a consultative capacity in so far as the Governor chooses to make use of their services. It is not proposed to publish a further Command Paper relating to Malta at present, but the text of the Order in Council providing for the interregnum will be made public in the usual manner as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAT REPORT, 24th June, 1930; col. 868, Vol. 240.]
I then put a supplementary question asking him if the measures to be taken would require the sanction of this House, and the Prime Minister said that he would prefer to have notice of the question. The question was answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day in these terms:
Owing to the urgency of the matter it was necessary to act without delay. The requisite legislation was enacted by His Majesty in Council this morning. It will become operative on Proclamation by the Governor in Malta.
In a certain sense it is not strictly accurate to speak of a "suspension" of the Constitution. Lord Strickland has said that it has had to be put in hospital. It may be called the hospitalisation of the Constitution, because there is to be consultation with Lord Strickland and the Governor. I hope that in any discussions which arise in this Committee we shall not make the mistake,
made in another place, of dwelling upon the so-called defects of character of Lord Strickland. The complaint has been made that he lacks humour—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has made a reference to another place. It is not in order to answer speeches made in another place.

Mr. FOOT: Criticisms have been made as to Lord Strickland's character. As far as I have been able to judge from the documents, and I ask the Committee to believe that I have gone into the matter very closely, I am convinced Lord Strickland has behaved uprightly throughout this matter. I think his personal character cannot in any sense be impugned, but criticism has been made not merely in another place. Others have been attacking his character, and the latest attack on his character has come from Mgr. Robinson himself. Hon. Members may have seen some preparatory notes on the White Paper of the Vatican referring to Lord Strickland, and a more insolent statement was surely never made. It is said of him that he has a resemblance to Martin Luther. That, to the mind of some of us, would not be any stain upon his character. It is said:
He would sacrifice any individual, policy, or principle for the sake of his love of power, and he has cunning without scruples.
These diplomatists, at any rate, are good judges of cunning. Mgr. Robinson goes on further to say that
he believed that the British Secretary of State for the Colonies understood the extent of the damage done by Lord Strickland to the prestige and popularity of England in Malta.
What right has one foreign country to say that of the Prime Minister of the Colony of another foreign Power? If Lord Strickland has done illegal acts the Courts are open, and if he has behaved improperly in his Government, there are the polling booths open, and let the people decide. Speaking further of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department represented by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, it is said:
He might decline to accept responsibility for Lord Strickland's policy or oblige him to modify the policy, or find some way of peacefully eliminating him from the political field in Malta.
Peacefully! That was, at any rate, ecclesiastical generosity. He is to be eliminated, let us hope, peacefully, but eliminated anyhow. I say that you will not find in the history of diplomacy any such statement as that issued by the representative of a foreign country referring to the Prime Minister of a British Colony.
I want to put to the hon. Gentleman on the other side one or two questions upon the proposals made by the Government. Is it intended that there shall be the publication of any further Papers? In that book there is a list of accusations made by the Vatican, mainly based on tittle-tattle, and ecclesiastical tittle-tattle is the most unreliable of all tittle-tattle. They are accusations made against the Prime Minister of an English Colony. I want to see Papers published that will enable Lord Strickland at any rate to make his full and categorical reply. That reply has been published by the Government of Malta. Let us have it in our British papers also.
How will this declaration be made to the people of Malta? To that I attach grave importance, because there is really this danger, that you will put great power into the hands of the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta, and that they will be able to go to their people and their flocks and say—and, mark you, there is a strong pro-Italian influence in Malta, as admitted by the Government themselves in this document—"Here is your precious British Government robbing you of the Constitution that was won by you." It is of the highest importance that we should see that this declaration, made by the British Government in the permanent interests of the people of Malta, shall get to them without being carried through very crooked and deviating channels. Let the Government not be content with the ordinary Government language, but let pains be taken so that there shall be published to the people of Malta, in language that they will fully understand, that it is in their interest and that it is to protect them that we have been compelled for the time being to suspend the Constitution of their Colony.
How long will the Interregnum last? What steps will be taken to strengthen the law? When the Interregnum is over,
are we to go back to this condition of things? Cannot something be done to strengthen the law by invalidating any election that can be shown to be brought about by this wrongful spiritual influence? I suggest upon that that there should be some strong and independent body, other than the Court of Appeal, that can have the power, where that illegitimate influence is proved, to invalidate the election and, if necessary, to award the seat to the candidate who has been prejudiced by the illegitimate power.
Under what Clause in the Constitution is the Government acting? Members of the Committee may be aware that the action of the Government has recently been disputed in the Courts in Malta. That case came before the Maltese Courts, and was reported in the papers yesterday, and the powers of the Government under the Constitution are being seriously questioned. What we ask is that that decision should be hastened as much as possible, because an appeal is pending. It may be that amending legislation will be required, and I believe it would be in accordance with the wish of those who have been responsible for affairs in Malta if there could be a hastened decision by the Privy Council in this country, so that, amending legislation, if found necessary, may not be delayed.
All that we ask is that in this matter there shall be no weakening. Some have been asking about peace, that there should be peace in this matter. On what terms can we have it? Owing to the action of the Vatican negotiations have been broken off. They know the terms upon which those negotiations can reopen, but it is useless for the Pope of this day to be like an earlier Pope and to expect that there shall be a return to Canossa in this business. I believe that if we gave way upon that matter, it would be one of the most serious things that we could do. It is of the highest importance that Lord Strickland and his Government should be retained in consultation with the Governor. I thank the Government for insisting upon that term in their decision. It is said that he is not persona grata with the Vatican. Well, who is? I wonder if the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is persona grata? And if they have the
right to insist that the Prime Minister in Malta must be eliminated, peacefully or otherwise, why have they not the right to ask that the Foreign Secretary in this country should be eliminated?
I want to conclude by quoting an Article of the Church of England. I believe that later to-night we are discussing one of the Church of England Measures. I am not a member of the Church of England, but I stand loyally by many of its Articles, and one that I stand by is the 37th Article, which reads:
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
I want further to quote someone who, I think, ought to give his example to the Government in these days. In fact, I think that the Under Secretary himself perhaps may have learned some of his lessons in that direction, and I hope that when Ministers pass into this House they sometimes will not always come in behind the Chair, but will come in by the other door, and spend a minute or two in front of the statue of Oliver Cromwell. I think it will help them in many things. I would refer them to what was written by Oliver Cromwell from Whitehall on the 6th of May, 1656, when a question arose of relations between ourselves and a European Power. The passage in the letter to which I wish to refer was as follows:
To General Blake and Montague at sea. From Whitehall, 6 May, 1656. In one of the Articles agreed with the Ambassador, it was expressed that the merchants should enjoy liberty of conscience, in the worship of God in their own houses and aboard their ships; enjoying also the use of English Bibles and other good books; taking care that they do not exceed this liberty. Now …"——
said Oliver Cromwell in his letter—
unless we will agree to submit this Article to the determination of the Pope, we cannot have it; whereby he would bring us to an owning of the Pope; which, we hope, whatever befall us, we shall not, by the grace of God, be brought unto.

Colonel Sir JAMES REYNOLDS: I am surprised that a speech such as we have just heard should ever had been made in the House of Commons and I rise to protest against it. I admit without any reserve the difficulties that have arisen in Malta and I regret them as much as anybody who is not of my own opinion in this country regrets them. It has been a great shock to all of my faith to hear
the edict that was given out in connection with sin and the election but I wish to remind hon. Members that, in part of the evidence which has come before us in the documents which have been circulated, it is stated that that interdict emanated from certain priests in Gozo who had since been withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I read that myself in the documents. I wish to say that I think it is a very grave thing for any Member of the House of Commons to accuse a Power with whom we are on friendly relations of using insulting language in connection with this country of prevarication. The trouble is there and it has to be got over. I am a personal friend of Lord Stricklands. I have visited him in Malta and I have been his neighbour in Westmorland and I am extremely grieved that he has fallen into the trouble into which he has fallen but I would point out to hon. Members that in Malta, by the Constitution, the clergy are entitled to go into Parliament and to act entirely as lay-folk may act.
It has been the case that in recent years Lord Strickland has found himself in political warfare with certain of these priests. In my own opinion it is not every man who would have acted in that difficulty as Lord Strickland has acted. I say that on two occasions he acted in a manner which was practically creating a situation from which the clerical side could hardly withdraw without retaliation. I wish to explain to hon. Members one thing which I think they ought to understand, much as I regret the situation which has arisen. Malta is an entirely Catholic country. The Catholic religion is the religion of the State under a concordat and I want to get this thought into the minds of hon. Members—that through misunderstanding, through the clash of personalities, it has come about that the clerical authorities there were of the definite opinion that Lord Strickland was seeking to destroy the Catholic Church in Malta. I think that did come about. I am not saying that they were entitled to think it, but we must remember that some things were done in connection with duress on a certain priest who had taken vows of obedience to his own Order. He was aided and abetted in not carrying out that obedience when he received a command
from his own superior. That was a very serious thing to do. That man's first duty was his vow of obedience, but he got into politics and he appealed to Lord Strickland as a civilian and a politician. The action taken by Lord Strickland caused the feeling that he was definitely out to help——

Mr. FOOT: The hon. Member cannot be aware that yesterday the circumstances were related in detail by Lord Strickland and what is now being stated by the hon. Member was denied by his friend Lord Strickland.

Sir J. REYNOLDS: What was denied?

Mr. FOOT: There was a denial that duress was brought to bear upon that priest by Lord Strickland. Lord Strickland in his statement shows that in this matter he behaved with the greatest possible deference to the Vatican and to their representative and that all he did was to refuse to allow the man to be deported from Malta.

9.0 p.m.

Sir J. REYNOLDS: I have had the whole explanation from Lord Strickland's own mouth, sitting at my own table. He refused to give this man a passport out of the island when the man was ordered to go to another monastery in another place. Lord Strickland refused the passport and that was absolutely interfering with the orders of this man's superior. I only wish to say a final word in regard to this very unpleasant and unsatisfactory situation which I am perfectly sure will come right very soon, if people will only refrain from trying to make a great bonfire out of what is really a rather small matter. What I would say is this. If the clerical authorities thought that Lord Strickland was out to put down ecclesiastical authority in Malta, then they would have the right in my opinion to state to the people—the people being Catholics themselves—that they should not support such a Government. The edict that was given had no relation to anybody except those who were Catholics. They had the right to do that in view of the particular situation in Malta if they thought that Lord Strickland was out to destroy the Catholic religion in Malta. This situation has arisen, as I say, from misunderstandings and from a clash of personalities but I am perfectly certain that
if the House of Commons only acts with that courtesy which is due from one Power to another, this matter will very soon be put right but the less we discuss it in this country in the spirit in which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has spoken, the sooner will it be settled.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Reynolds) has not I think kept himself abreast of this Maltese case as it has been reported in the Press and in another place and his version of the facts hardly coincides with the Blue Book which I hardly think he can have read.

Sir J. REYNOLDS: Yes I have.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is unfortunate when an hon. Member comes here ill-equipped with the facts, because he is then in a less favourable position to make agreeable to hon. Members doctrines which strike our ears as being somewhat medieval in character. We in this country leave the Church to deal with moral matters, and, in State matters, prefer to be without any form of clerical direction. That is the doctrine which is I think pursued in the Catholic church in this country, and it is very difficult for us to appreciate the state of mind in a country like Malta where apparently doctrines which we have long ago discarded are still in the forefront of politics. For myself I think I have never listened with greater satisfaction to a speech in the House of Commons than that which was delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) because he stated, as I hope it will always be stated by Englishmen, that one of the rights of the citizen is to think as he likes on political matters and to be free from clerical censures in connection with all his political actions. That doctrine has long been the foundation of British liberties and I hope that when the Constitution is restored to Malta in its full vigour, that doctrine will be as well established in that British Dominion as it is in the Mother country.
There is one point, however, in connection with this Maltese embroglio which needs emphasis at the present moment. We know that the constitution has, as my hon. Friend said happily, been put
in hospital for the moment. The constitution is suspended, but what I would ask the Committee and particularly the Government to consider is this—is that suspension to be the peaceful elimination of Lord Strickland, is this suspension of the constitution precisely what the Vatican desires, and how far can we say in this House that those unfortunate results are not actual facts? Lord Strickland and his Government are now in an advisory capacity, and are to be called upon to advise whenever the Governor of Malta thinks it desirable. That may be his elimination. We all hope that it will mean that Lord Strickland will still be in fact Prime Minister of Malta, and that the Governor of Malta will act by his advice generally, for there is this to be considered. Suppose that this suspension of the constitution is what was wanted by the Clerical party. They will then be in a position to say, "You see, we have eliminated Lord Strickland, and, what is more, you will observe that Great Britain, which gave you a constitution and a right to govern yourselves, has taken that constitution away; Great Britain cannot, therefore, be the friend of the Maltese people, for she has taken away their constitution and in future the Maltese must see that their real spiritual and racial home is Italy, Rome and the Fascist Government."
I am afraid that that will be an argument that may be used, that the action which the Government have taken in Malta may be received with acclamation by the Clerical party, and that they will have in their hands two weapons—the proof that they have eliminated Lord Strickland, and the proof that England has failed the Maltese people, and that they must turn to Italy for help. It must be made clear that Lord Strickland, although not Prime Minister, is still the person who has the confidence of the British Government and of the Maltese people, and that the views, not merely of Lord Strickland as Lord Strickland, but of a Government representing the majority of the thinking people in Malta, are to be considered in the legislation which is passed. Though the constitution is temporarily in hospital, let the will of the people still prevail through the party which was in power, and in that case Malta will get what it wants in the way of administrative action, and we shall be saved from putting a very
strong weapon into anti-English hands and those who desire to see Italy replace us in Malta. It is probably undesirable that we should have a prolonged debate on this matter, upon which we all feel so strongly, either on the clerical or on the anti-clerical side.
I would like the Committee to consider the position of some of the black races who are in our keeping. I want to mention first Tshekedi Khama, Chief of the Bamangwato tribe in Bechuanaland.

Mr. AMERY: On a point of Order. Will not the question of Tshekedi come under the Dominions Office Vote?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think that Bechuanaland was ruled out as being a question which does not come under the Dominions Vote, but under the Colonial Vote.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) is correct; it is a Dominions Office question.

The CHAIRMAN: That is so, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not pursue the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would like the Under-Secretary to consider the possibility of the Colonial Office giving an opportunity to native chiefs and native bodies that have a grievance bringing their cases before the Privy Council—only, of course, in cases where the Colonial Office approve. It would facilitate many questions if natives without money were able to bring their cases direct to the Privy Council in this country, which they regard as their father in matters of justice, instead of having to go through the extremely costly processes of law. This is an idea that has occurred to those friends of the natives with whom I have been working for some time as a possible solution of a great many difficulties. The hon. Gentleman will remember the case of the Southern Rhodesian natives which cost so much money four or five years ago.
I want to deal with one other side of the development of native African territories, that is, the side of education. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Horrabin) is fuller of information
on the education question than I am, but I would put this view before the Committee that in order to give the best chance to the African native, he should be allowed to learn English. It seems such a silly thing to ask for, and yet in a great part of Africa, not merely in South Africa but even in Kenya, the white population are doing their best to ensure that the natives shall have a language of their own which is not English. I am certain that the rise in the standing of the native, his cultural development, his coming forward into the ranks of civilisation, his ability to resist exploitation and to get into his trade unions, and to widen his mind, depend entirely on the chance of learning to read and speak English. If, as is the case in Kenya to-day, we refuse to allow the native to be taught English so that he may know Swahili only, we definitely prevent him rising in the scale of civilisation and having the advantages of the white race. If they cannot read the papers or literature or the laws, if they cannot understand the white agitator, they are in a helpless position in matters of wages or justice. Give them the chance of learning English.
I know that it is becoming the fashion lately to say that if only we had not let the Indians learn English, all would be well in India, and that it was the fault of that man Mill and that man Macaulay that we have an educated mass in India thinking like Westerners, although they have a coloured skin. There may be something in that point of view, but, if we take that point of view with Africa which we refused to take in India 100 years ago, we shall be betraying our trust. We have had from the Colonial Office a most admirable Memorandum on native policy in East Africa. I dare not say how highly I think of it, lest other forces should require the Government to withdraw it. Anybody who reads that document—and I know it now almost by heart—will see that the Government have laid themselves out, to see in what possible way they can protect native interests and allow the natives to develop on to the same civilised plane as the white man. I would congratulate my hon. Friend on having got into that document that interesting and I hope final decision on the drawbacks of communal representation and the superior merits of the
Common. Role of Electors. The only thing they have not said in that excellent document is: "And the native shall be allowed to learn English and become equipped as an Englishman with knowledge to fight for himself." Here we do not or cannot always look after the interests of subject peoples. I know that we pride ourselves on doing it, but we do it jolly badly. It is one thing to have to rely on an even perfect House of Commons for justice, but it is far, far better that these people should have the knowledge and the ability to rely upon themselves and to read, think and fight for themselves. Our true duty towards the natives of Africa is not merely to protect them temporarily from the dangers of exploitation that beset them, but to enable them, in due course, to take their place as civilised peoples governing themselves and protecting themselves.

Mr. AMERY: I do not rise to follow my right hon. Friend in the very interesting subject he has raised, but to say a few words, and I hope no unnecessary words, on the very unfortunate and difficult situation which has arisen in Malta. In the first instance I should like to call attention to two features of the situation which are worth noting. This interference by the Vatican in the political affairs of Malta has not arisen out of any religious issue, in the ordinary sense of the word. It has already been stated that Lord Strickland is an earnest and sincere Catholic. I believe some of his ancestors have been canonised as martyrs for their faith.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: One of them was expelled from this House for being a Catholic.

Mr. AMERY: No legislation has been introduced in Malta that can be described as in any sense of an anti-clerical character. No administrative action has been taken which could justify any such intervention by the clergy in politics as undoubtedly takes place in every country where a Church thinks that its practical interests or its spiritual position are threatened by political action. The whole difficulty has arisen out of this: that the majority of the Maltese clergy have thrown themselves very violently on one side in an issue which does not directly affect religion at all. The issue which has dominated Malta polities for more
than a generation past is that very issue of linguistic teaching of which the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has just spoken. There has been a long conflict between those in favour of the use of the Italian language and Italian culture and those who advocate on purely practical grounds of commercial advantage the use of the English language and who also, upon grounds of national sentiment and convenience to the people, advocate the extension of the Maltese language, which is the only language understood by 80 per cent. of the people and the only language used, in the home, by the remaining 20 per cent.
It is not for me to express any opinion as between those points of view, but they have formed the storm centre of Maltese politics. The issue has been largely as to whether, if English and Italian are to be treated theoretically as equal, children should be compelled to learn a little bit of both—and learn both badly—or whether the parents should be given the option of making a choice of languages. Obviously this is not a religious matter, but it has so happened that, with relatively few exceptions, the clergy in Malta have considered that their status, their position and their influence have been largely bound up with the dominance of Italian culture. I would like to say here, and say with all the emphasis that I can command, that that point of view has not, with very rare exceptions, been associated with any disloyalty to the British Empire or any desire to be politically associated with Italy. The people of Malta regard themselves as in no sense akin to or related to the Italians, any more than they are related to the people of this country. They are a very ancient, interesting little European nation of their own.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Of Phœnician origin.

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Phœnician; and perhaps of still older Mediterranean origin. At any rate, with the exception of very few individuals, it is not a question of any disloyalty to this country, and there is no reason why we in this House should sympathise with one party rather than with another. The Constitution of Malta has never put any restric-
tions on the intervention of the clergy in politics. It was hoped the assignment of two places in the Upper House to the clergy would keep them out of ordinary controversial politics, but that did not prove to be the case, and they have taken a very active part in the ordinary political warfare of Malta and in the ordinary slinging of political mud, and have received a certain amount of the same in return. Unfortunately, they have regarded this ordinary political treatment on Maltese lines as a direct attack on their Church, and it is through treating a political controversy on nonreligious subjects as an attack upon their Church, and endeavouring to use spiritual weapons to defeat an ordinary political opponent, that this whole trouble has arisen.
There is one other aspect of this matter which has been a pivot of this difficulty to an even greater extent than has been realised in this House, because it has not appeared in the Papers which have been published. The Blue Book has dealt entirely with the correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Vatican, but there is another correspondence, immensely interesting, between the Maltese Ministry and the Vatican, through the mediary of the Archbishop, which ought to be published in this country if the issue is to be understood. The hon. Member sitting behind me dwelt on the particular case of the priest who was ordered to leave Malta by his ecclesiastic superior because, so it is alleged—and I make no comment upon it one way or the other—he showed himself active politically on Lord Strickland's side. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that the question of the refusal to grant a permit ever arose, because the matter was suspended in order that the Vatican might itself look into the whole question. But during that period of suspension the Italian superior of the priest in question committed a technical breach of the postal regulations by habitually sending letters to Italy with Italian stamps through the local Vice-Consul.
On that technical breach, so I understand, a prosecution was raised. Whether it was wise to raise it or whether it was a matter of sufficient importance to warrant it, is no concern of ours, but what is important is that upon this issue
the Vatican put forward a claim that no ecclesiastic might be brought into a court of law without the sanction of his ecclesiastical superior. That claim is not admitted in any Catholic country of which I know. It was finally rejected in this country by the Constitutions of Clarendon, 760 years ago. It was disposed of as far as Malta was concerned a few years after the British occupation of Malta, more than 100 years ago. When the Maltese Ministers drew attention to this matter and to the fact that the British Government had repudiated that claim and that the Vatican had accepted that repudiation, the answer was that it might have done so but that it had done so under protest and that therefore it was entitled to revive the claim whenever it saw a suitable opportunity.
Those facts, quite apart from any other matters, seems to me to justify the action which His Majesty's Government have taken. I rise in no sense to criticise them but rather to associate myself from these benches with the decision they have felt obliged to take in a very difficult situation. I would only like to ask one or two questions about it. I understand that during this temporary period the view of the Government was that ordinances could be passed having the force of law in order to regularise and straighten out the whole situation. I rather hope with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) that the opportunity may be used to give more effective protection than exists at present in Malta to the ordinary free citizen and voter against illegitimate spiritual coercion. I understand, however, that the Court of Appeal in Malta has directly challenged the authority of the Governor to issue those ordinances.
I imagine that there are two means by which His Majesty's Government can deal with this situation. One is to bring the decision of the Appeal Court in Malta before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is a course which may take some time. There is, of course, another alternative, which is still in full force as regards Malta, though it is no longer constitutionally in force as regards the Dominions, unless it were deliberately asked for by the Dominions. That alternative is the power of this House to pass legislation directly validating the whole position. I do not know whether the
Under-Secretary of State is yet in a position to inform us as to the line which the Government may take in this matter?
While I entirely support the action of the Government, I do most sincerely hope they may find a way out of this difficulty which will enable the Constitution of Malta to come into operation again at the earliest possible moment. It would be a great misfortune if this wide measure of self-government—this really very daring experiment in self-government which was conceded to Malta less than 10 years ago and with the concession of which I was privileged to be closely associated—should be treated as having failed. Apart from the intervention of this issue, I do not think anybody can suggest that the Maltese have shown themselves unfitted for self-government. They have had plenty of liveliness in political contests; so have we. But there has never been a, liveliness directed against the Empire or this country, and in spite of that liveliness the island of Malta has, under self-government, made very satisfactory progress indeed.
When I investigated the finances of Malta at the end of the War they were in a situation so grave that I had to come to this House and ask for a free grant of £,250,000 to enable Malta to get on its feet. Once put on its feet and given control of its own affairs it has managed its affairs over a long period of years under a Nationalist Government, and more recently under Lord Strickland's Government, in a perfectly satisfactory manner. Industries in that island have flourished, and a population of 250,000 has somehow managed to find its livelihood on a territory not as large as the Isle of Wight. Therefore I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be a grave disaster if the Constitution of Malta were suspended for so long that the origin of this dispute became forgotten and it was forgotten that the Government had intervened in the interest of self-government. It is from this point of view that I commend the whole situation to the consideration of the Government, and I can assure them that in this situation, with its grave implications, the Government need have no fear of any partisan criticism or of any desire to make party capital in any quarter of the House.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: I wish to take the opportunity to raise upon this Vote a matter that has been before this House several times since the year 1922 and which has not yet been satisfactorily solved. I refer to the question of mui-tsai in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. I am well aware that the majority of hon. Members in the Chamber know perfectly well what mui-tsai is, but in the event of new Members not realising what the system is, I want to say quite clearly that it is a matter of slavery which still exists under the British flag and in one of our Crown Colonies. It is a system whereby little girls from seven and eight, years upwards are deliberately sold for certain sums of money. I have a list here of the prices that are paid for little girls in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. Sometimes the price is 96 dollars, and at other times it is 80 dollars. But it is a question of selling little girls into slavery. It is not my desire to attempt in any way to harass the feelings of hon. Members by describing what the slavery is. There is no doubt that in certain cases, perhaps, the little girls are well treated, but there have been cases again and again of revolting cruelty in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. Sometimes they are beaten, and I have instances where little girls are cruelly tortured by being burned by hot coals. It is quite obvious that the selling of little girls into slavery is a system which should no longer exist under the British flag. It is a crime to enslave man. How much greater a crime is it to enslave children! In 1880, when Sir John Hennessy was Governor of Hong Kong, he wrote these words:
I had from time to time made some efforts to expose and check the form of slavery and of the buying and selling of children in connection with the brothel system in Hong Kong.
He went on to say:
The more I penetrate below the polished surface of our civilisation the more convinced am I that the broad under-current of life here is more like the Southern States of America when slavery was dominant than it resembles the all-pervading civilisation of England.
Since then ordinance after ordinance has been passed to abolish that evil, and they have been ignored. There are difficulties to overcome. In 1922 or 1923 this matter was investigated, and its abolition was ordered as being contrary to the principles of British law and justice. At
that time, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he took energetic steps to do away with the system, but unfortunately that system still exists. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping wrote to the Government of Hong Kong in February, 1922, as follows:
I am not at all satisfied. Unless I am able to state that this institution does not involve the slightest element of compulsory employment (which is the essence of slavery) and that every mui-tsai of a certain age is in law and practice free if she wishes to leave her adopted parents or employers. I cannot defend its existence in a British colony. So far as administration measures can make it so this freedom must be real.
After that energetic steps were taken, and then, to the complete surprise of everybody, it was found six years afterwards that the ordinance had been ineffective, and had not worked at all. It is astounding that a system of this kind should be allowed to exist so long in one of our Crown Colonies. A Bill dealing with this question was passed in 1926, and the present Secretary of State for the Colonies has stated that it has been entirely ineffectual.
I wish to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to another evil system which is closely allied to the one I have already mentioned, and it is the selling of young girls under the system of tolerated houses, which still exists in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. It is well known to everyone who has studied the League of Nations Commission on the Traffic in Women and Children that where tolerated houses exist and State regulation of vice, as in Hong Kong, there is always a sale of girls. One way of dealing with this question is to abolish tolerated houses. I call the attention of the Under-Secretary to the fact that this evil still exists in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, and I wish to know whether the subject of tolerated houses is one which is going to be considered at the coming Imperial Conference. I do not wish the House to think that no steps have been taken to deal with this question. The Secretary of State issued an ordinance last year to the Government of Hong Kong which stated:
It now appears, however, that six years from the passing of the ordinance, the most
that can be said is that there is no reason to believe that the number of mui-tsai in the colony has increased.
After making all allowance for their difficulties in bringing the system to an end, which are described at length in your despatches, it is my duty to inform you that public opinion in this country and in the House of Commons will not accept such a result with equanimity.
It may be assumed that very little of this evil is known outside the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. I would like to point out that from my own constituency I have received letters urging me to bring this matter before the House of Commons. I admit that the last Ordinance has been more effective than the previous one, and it was decided that a report of its working should be sent to England every six months. I would like the Under-Secretary to tell the House whether the first report has yet been received, because the Ordinance was put into force in December, 1929, and I want to know if the report will be made public when it has been received by the Colonial Office. The present position is that the Hong Kong Government have dishonoured their pledge on this question by allowing this evil to continue uninterrupted. I agree that if this new Ordinance is put into force it will do much to deal with the evil, but experience on these questions in the past shows that it is absolutely necessary that public pressure must be brought to bear if such Ordinances are to be made effective. I have brought this question forward, because I believe it is the earnest desire of every Member of this House that this state of things should be blotted out.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I wish to raise two matters with the Minister in charge of this Vote. The first is with regard to an item which I do not think has appeared in previous Estimates, namely, the item under Sub-head B:
Conveyance of Colonial Office bags to the Middle East by the England-India air line.
I feel that Members in all quarters of the Committee would like some information with regard to this item. It is a very bare item of a line or two, and we should like to know what is the policy of the Government on this matter, and what the sum which we are asked to vote in respect of it indicates. One would like to know the quantity of
Colonial Office bags carried by the air mail, and what is the idea of the Government as to the future development of air services for the transport of Government officials and Government mails. I should also like to ask the hon. Gentleman on what basis this air mail is carried. It would be out of order, I presume, to raise now the question of the iniquitous charges made by the Post Office, who make a profit on the air mail to India which they do not make on letters. I do not propose to go into that question, except to ask if these Colonial Office bags are carried on the same basis which the Post Office charges for air mails. One would like to know that the Colonial Office regards sympathetically the future of air transport, and is taking a long view as to the eventual value to the British Empire of this new means of rapid communication. Rapid communication between any two districts may mean a rapid interchange of thought, and a rapid development of good understanding with a particular part of our Empire where relations may be strained; and, in cases where there may be trouble with the indigenous inhabitants, a better understanding within a shorter space of time may mean peace within the British Empire. I would ask the Government to give some indication of their line of thought and of development on this very important matter.
The other question which I desire to raise, and which I touch upon with considerable diffidence, is the question of Malta. I do so only because I feel that what we are discussing here to-night will probably have a vast effect, mental and psychological, on millions of inhabitants of this country, for, in raising this issue, we have started something which may get out of the control of the House of Commons and out of the control of the Government. If we once raise religious feelings in this country in one section of people believing in a particular form of worship as against another, we are indeed raising what is still probably the basic impulse in our national life in this country, and I feel that, if we talk as we have been talking, we are likely to cause reactions on the deepest and most instinctive feelings of all citizens of this country. There are many citizens of this country who have not the knowledge
which has been displayed by hon. Members here to-night, and, particularly, have not the knowledge of the circumstances of Malta which is possessed by my right hon. Friend who has spoken from the Front Bench. Without that knowledge, citizens of this country may be liable to form a hasty judgment. I hold no brief for the Roman Catholic Church; indeed, being a Scotsman, my instincts are possibly rather the other way. Nevertheless, I do feel that we ought to remember, and to be very thankful for the fact, that the Church of Rome, thanks to the great tolerance and breadth of British character, has dwelt in our midst amicably and peacefully for many years past.
Personally, I think that there has been a fault—a temporal fault, an administrative fault—on the part of the Church authorities in Rome, reacting in Malta, and that that fault is a serious one which must be dealt with with firmness by the British Government, in order that there shall be no religious interference, that there shall be no religious influence brought to bear in the political life of any dependency of the British Empire. At the same time, let there be tolerance. It is only a great people that can display great tolerance. We are a great nation; we are a great Protestant nation. I honestly feel that we can be proud that we are a great Protestant nation, and, in our greatness, can overlook faults which probably we repeat in other forms of life and in other directions. This is a fault which has a great instinctive reaction in our souls, but do not let us forget the old parable of the mote and the beam. In this question, let us try to exercise that charity of mind which is embodied in the injunction that we should do unto others as we would they should do unto us, and forgive and forget for the future. When once we have made quite certain that the British Government at home has given all support to a British Government which is going to do its duty, let us forget, and do not let us raise a religious controversy in this country which would go far beyond the question with which we are dealing in this debate, and which might go far to alter the destinies of this country. I have said that we are great. Let us rejoice in our greatness, and be tolerant in the future.

Mr. HORRABIN: I do not propose to touch upon the subject which was introduced so eloquently in the first speech of this debate by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but perhaps I may be permitted to tender my congratulations to him on having made so moving a speech, and to plead that the subject upon which I want to say a few words, if it has not the same dramatic interest, is at least as much concerned with human freedom, and with the human freedom of numerically a great many more people than the issue which has been previously referred to. During the discussion to-day in this Committee, we have heard a great deal about economic development, about marketing, about Empire trade, and so forth, but I want to say something about a different sort of development, which, as it seems to me, should receive equal attention from the Committee, namely, the development of the people who inhabit this Empire. I am one of those who believe that there is no justification for our presence at all in Africa and in other Continents except on the terms which are expressed so clearly in the mandatory principles, and in the principle, especially, of trusteeship for the backward races—a trusteeship which is to operate until those peoples are able to stand on their own feet and take their own place in the comity of nations. That trusteeship involves, surely, the care for their development, for their training in self-Government, and for their education towards self-Government.
It is that educational aspect of Imperial affairs that I am anxious to stress, and I should like to mention the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), in a debate in the House a year ago on this same subject, remarked that the Colonial Office in these days was in fact a Ministry of Education. We on this side of the House, on many occasions, both inside and outside, have insisted on the dangers of the exploitation of native peoples, particularly in Africa, in the interests of capitalists. I want to urge on the present Government that, from the point of view of the African, there is surely very little to choose between a policy of exploitation in the interests of English profits and a policy
of exploitation chiefly in the interests of an English unemployment problem. During the many debates on African affairs which have taken place in the House during the lifetime of the present Government, we have constantly heard of Colonial development, of economic development, but we have heard very little indeed about the duty which surely lies alongside that privilege of economic development—our duty in regard to educational development towards the peoples of Africa. It is surely possible, if I may put it in this way, that there might develop a sort of working-class Imperialism, which, as I have said, would regard the natives of Africa and their resources primarily as means towards the solution of our unemployment here at home, and that, from the point of view of Africans, would be no different from a policy of quite naked exploitation. It is the first duty of a Labour Government to give at least equal place and equal attention to this business of educating the African towards self-Government and, in the very broadest sense, as to the development of African resources or the use of African labour.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary if he will assure us that the general views with regard to education laid down in paragraph 8 of the Statement on Native Policy issued a few days ago are going to be carried into effect and are not to remain pious observations; that they are going to be, in fact, an educational charter for the Africans, and that the statement on native policy is not to remain just a scrap of paper, because hitherto it is easy to compile instances of the exceedingly parsimonious attitude adopted by the British Government in various parts of Africa on this question of education. When we remember that, until after the War, the Government in Kenya did not spend one penny on education, and that even now it spends £50 per head per annum on European children and 4s. per head per annum on African children, it is obvious that in the matter of native education there is still ample scope for this Government to do more than its predecessors have done. When we remember that in Nyasa there is not a single Government school, and that until a few years ago the Government's contribution towards African education in Nyasaland was to divide some £3,000 a
year between 1,500 mission schools, there again it is certainly not necessary to emphasise the parsimony of such an attitude. An eminent authority wrote recently that not 1 per cent. of African children go to Government schools, so that there is apparently ample scope for educational development, and I ask the Committee to compare that fact with the record in German East Africa, where, before the War, the Germans introduced compulsory education in the three biggest towns in the Colony, an educational achievement, surely, which has not been reached in any British Colony, even in South Africa, so far.
10.0 p.m.
I want to emphasise two main points which, it seems to me, must characterise this business of educational development. In the first place, we must work for a purely liberal education and not a merely technical education, not an education content with dealing in a utilitarian way with certain definite present-day problems, even though those must be touched on in a curriculum designed for them. A very distinguished African missionary and educator wrote recently that the only possible aim for our education must be, quoting certain classic words, "that they might have life and have it more abundantly." I should be a little shy in quoting such idealist sentiments in so realist a place as this House were it not for the fact that those words were endorsed and underlined by so practical a realist as the late Sir Gordon Guggisberg, who himself quoted the passage, that these words must define the only possible aim of our education of the African. Surely the appeal is made all the easier since the Africans are passionately anxious for education. May I quote an incident described in a recent book by Mr. Fraser, the head of the Achimota College in West Africa, in which he says, on this very subject of the scarcity of schools, that he has seen a school where 300 children stayed outside among the trees, unable to be admitted for want of space, each hoping to be the first to get in when a vacancy occurs. I ask the Committee, not in any sentimental spirit, to try to see that picture of 300 children standing outside the school hoping at some time to be able to get into it, a picture which ought to be contrasted with some of the
pomp and pageantry of Empire. The first main point about this question of African education must be that it should be liberal education, and not simply technical education, nor an education designed for inferior beings. Professor Julian Huxley quoted recently in the "Times" an observation addressed to him by an unofficial settler member of the legislative council in Kenya, who remarked that all native education which was not strictly technical was always useless and usually harmful. If anyone insists that that, at any rate, is the point of view of the man on the spot, one can only quote against the man in the spot of that type the whole attitude and the repeated words of the late Sir Gordon Guggisberg, who surely was entitled to rank as a man on the spot in this particular regard.
The second point I want to emphasise is that this African education must be based on the teaching of English, and that need not in any way obviate a grounding in African history. English must be, surely, to the African native the main means of liberation, in exactly the same way that four or five centuries ago in Northern Europe Greek and Latin were the languages of liberation. I am quite aware of certain difficulties about this teaching of English. I believe that in certain Colonies, Nigeria for example, the easiest way for scoundrelly Africans to get rich quick is by advertising themselves as teachers of English. Mr. Fraser tells us that men of this sort who know hardly a word of English quite easily raise money from their innocent compatriots by advertising themselves as English teachers. It is obvious that that English teaching must be very carefully watched. Does not the mere fact of getting rick quick in that way prove as clearly as possible the desperate desire of the African for knowledge, for a knowledge of English, for education?
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) referred to the fact that education in India has been based on English teaching. It is best to be quite frank and to say that we want African education to be based on English in the same way, because one wants to get the same results, not results of violence, but the results of an educated and intelligent Nationalist movement demanding
its rights, the right to stand as free individuals inside the Empire. We are told as a stock argument that an education based on English means an education alien to the mentality of the African. Surely there is no reason why an education based on English should be more alien to African mentality than a Semitic, Biblical education is to us.
Just two or three minor points of urgency in regard to this question of education—points on which everyone, whether he has first-hand or merely book knowledge of the subject, agrees in principle. There is urgent need for more teaching. I urge on the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary that the same method which has been worked successfully in Kenya, and to the success of which Professor Huxley bears tribute, that is of the travelling schools, should be repeated in other parts of Africa, especially in West Africa. I should like to emphasise the very strong appeal that Mr. Fraser made recently for the closer relationship between the medical service and the educational machine. It has been remarked that the Ministry of Education in this country has become more and more a Ministry of Health through the examination of children that takes place in the schools. It has become as much concerned with health as the Department which bears that name. That ought to be the case in Africa, where questions of health, hygiene, and sanitation are so much more important. I do not need to remind the Committee that out of every thousand babies born in almost every tribe in Kenya rather more than 400 die every year. I believe that that is a very low estimate.
The need for the very close relation of the medical service and the education machinery is sufficiently obvious. That leads quite naturally to the other point that I want to mention—the need for the much greater development in the education of women in Africa. It is obvious that if you are aiming at an education which is to be related to the day-to-day needs of the people, and those needs are so much concerned with sanitation, the education which leaves the woman outside largely negatives itself. I have seen figures of the numbers of girls educated in Government and mission schools in Nigeria. It was mentioned in each case
that the number of boys in those two classes of schools was four times the number of girls. Here is a direction in which the present Government might very well do something. It seems to me that a Labour Government could most appropriately justify itself in regard to these colonial problems, if it were to set about an intensive development of this educational business, which expresses our immediate duty to the African people.

Miss RATHBONE: Like the last speaker I want to direct the attention of the Committee for a few moments to the question of the problem of the treatment of the native races in Africa, especially with relation to women. During the last few days we have had circulated to every Member of the House two extraordinarily interesting memoranda, one dealing with the closer union of Central East Africa, and the other on native administration in East Africa. We are told that the latter memorandum has been circulated to the Governors of the territories concerned with instructions that native administration should be brought into strict conformity with that laid down in the memorandum. I should like to ask whether we are to be furnished with information as to the precise way in which those general principles, laid down in the memorandum, are to be carried out? Statements of general principles not followed by concrete acts are often delusive. They serve as a screen between the truth and the individual, behind which there may be much going on or very little going on. For example one of the principles laid down in the memorandum regards the subject of taxation.
We are told that in future direct taxation of the native is to be limited by his capacity to pay without hardship and without upsetting his customary methods of life, and that the Government expenditure should bear a proper relation to the revenue raised from the natives, and particularly that the natives should receive directly and visibly a fair return for the direct taxation which they are called upon to pay. I gather that that strikes experts on the subject of African and Colonial administration as a great advance, because in the past natives have not received the full benefit of the taxation which they have been called upon to pay. Being a novice on this sub-
ject I would like to know, further, whether it involves, as it appears to do, that the taxation which is to be expended upon the natives should be limited to that which they themselves are called upon to pay. If so, it appears a curious principle not altogether in accordance with natural justice, which is that the wealthier section has to pay for social services which benefit the poorer sections. Are there to be two separate pools of taxation, and separate beneficiaries. If so, it is hard to see how the elevated phrases in these memoranda are ever to be translated into concrete realities.
The hon. Member who spoke last quoted the extraordinarily remarkable difference between the per capitum expenditure of Europeans on Asiatic races and on the native races. I notice that the per capitum expenditure on education of the native races was described as practically negligible. That, surely, throws a curious light and a strange contrast upon the principle laid down in the recently circulated memorandum of local policy. It says:
On the one hand, it must be the aim of the administration of every territory with regard to all the inhabitants, irrespective of race or religion to maintain order, to administer justice, to promote health and education, to provide means of communication and transport, and generally to promote the industrial and commercial development of the country. In all this range of work persons of every race and of every religion, coloured no less than white, have a right to equal treatment in accordance with their several needs.
It will require drastic changes in the administration of these countries if that item in native policy is really to be carried out and brought into conformity without causing very great changes in the ratio between expenditure upon Europeans and upon natives. It is hard to see how it can be carried out at all if the expenditure upon natives is to be bounded and limited by the amount of taxation which is collected from the natives. Money may be the root of all evil, but money in matters of social reform is also the root of all progress. Indeed, the amount of progress that can be accomplished in health and in education will be the measure of the financial resources available for the purpose.
Turning especially to the question of women, we are faced with still greater anomalies. It has become a sort of
fashion, I notice, in nearly all reports dealing with distant parts of the British Commonwealth to pay a kind of lip service and tribute generally in a single paragraph or two to the great importance of education and the advancement of women. In the report which we have all recently been studying with such passionate interest—the Simon Report—we find that the women's question is described as the key to progress. In the Hilton Young Report on Africa there occurs this paragraph:
The progress of African communities will be seriously retarded if education is not extended to women as well as men. It was asserted in the famous educational despatch of 1854 which laid the foundation of modern education in India that by the education of women 'a far greater proportional impulse is imparted to the educational and moral tone of the people than by the education of men.' The principle has the support of the best educational opinion and it may be hoped that greater success will be achieved in giving effect to it in Africa, where there is no purdah system, than has so far obtained in India. Christian missions deserve the highest commendation for what they are doing for the women of Africa and their work in this field deserves every encouragement from Government.
It is also a kind of custom in these reports, having paid this tribute to the importance of women's education, to forget all about it. When it comes to translating general principles into practice we hear very little further about the education of women. I think, therefore, we are entitled to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give us, in the future, if not to-night, fuller information to show precisely what proportion of the poor and meagre funds are being made available for educational services for women. In seeking light on this subject, I have been struck by the very meagre information available in regard to it even in the quotation from the Hilton Young Report which ends in the rather typical and disquieting phrase:
Christian missions deserve the highest commendation for what they are doing for the women of Africa and their work in this field deserves every encouragement from Government.
That, as far as I can gather from the position in India, Africa and nearly all similar dependencies, is the very extraordinary attitude towards women's education in Government circles. They appear to say: "It is scarcely worth while bothering about the education of
girls, but, of course, we ought to do something. Let us leave it to the missions." Therefore, we find the missions receiving a sort of pat on the head from Government officials, a word of commendation now and then, and occasionally a small grant out of such State funds as may be available when they have done what they must do for the boys.
I am expressly avoiding going into figures and quoting particular Colonies, for fear of giving unnecessary pain and offence to those who are doing their best, but from very many workers who have spent years in doing painstaking work for the education and the health services of women in Africa., one hears the same complaint of tiny grants, capriciously given, frequently lowered or raised without any particular reason, often in accordance with the demands of economy or because of some anonymous complaint, or because money must be made available for some institution in which an administrator is interested. On the health side we hear of great tracts of Africa where hospitals are either nonexistent or where they have no female staff and are entirely staffed by men and native boys, and where women cannot receive service. This state of things exists, although there is an appallingly high infantile and maternal mortality.
Another thing that I have observed in regard to these matters of education is that, although we have had a good many committees lately, women never seem to find a place an committees, either as members or as witnesses. Take, for example, the Hilton Young Committee on Closer Union, which dealt with every aspect of East and Central African welfare and examined about 300 witnesses, representing every profession, every commercial interest and every shade from the darkest black to white. Among the whole 300 witnessess there was not one woman. May we appeal to the Under-Secretary that in any future committee that is set up he will remember the necessity for including the membership of women. May I remind the Committee that there is a special reason why women should be given a place on these committees, as is given in this country, often after reminders from some of us in this House and sometimes not without some protest.
There is a special necessity to do something with respect to the women in East and Central Africa, far more so than in regard to any European country, because out there the women are not only suffering all the disabilities of colour set up by the men of their race, but they are, in addition, often something like slaves to the men of their own tribes. Therefore, it is peculiarly dangerous to leave it to the men of the tribes and to those who are in touch with the men of the tribes to keep in memory the need of provision for women. Often the native men are the last from whom to expect a lead in this matter. Another report, for example, notes that in many cases the older men especially are opposed to the education of women because they are afraid that their wives and daughters will become restive under the institution of polygamy, having their husbands chosen for them and a price being fixed when they themselves are infants and under the conditions to which the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) referred to in a previous debate. The problem of the women is a problem of colour and also a problem of subjection, which in many cases has the worst features of slavery. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to bear these points in mind and to carry out the details of this admirable Memorandum, to see that women receive an adequate share of such financial grants as may be made and that they shall be represented on committees whether in Africa or in this country. I want to see the Colonial Office carry out a really courageous policy so that this Memorandum shall not remain a mere pious expression of opinion, but shall lead to definite and practical results.

Mr. ERNEST WINITERTON: I want to associate myself with the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). It is important that a declaration of this House should become neither a dead letter nor a scrap of paper. In 1888 this House passed a Resolution cordially supporting the Imperial and Colonial Governments in their endeavour to suppress the traffic in spirituous liquors in the territories under their influence and control. There has been an increasing sale of spirits in certain parts of the Crown Colonies which is causing the gravest distress and con-
cern to many people in this country of all parties and creeds, whether they are associated with the temperance cause or not, who desire to see a far stronger position taken up by the Colonial Office than has been the case during the past few years. They are filled with grave concern at the unsatisfactory nature of the replies so far given and although they acknowledge that there has been some slight improvement in West Africa and on the Gold Coast during the last two years there is still much to be done to redeem the established declaration of this House, that the right thing to do with the liquor traffic as regards native races is to prohibit it.

Dr. SHIELS: I am afraid that I shall not be able to do full justice to all the subjects which have been brought before the Committee by hon. and right hon. Members. Perhaps the subject which naturally attracts the most interest is the subject of Malta, with which the British Government has been very much engaged during the past weeks. We have had the position very well stated in a number of the speeches which have been made. I do not think other hon. Members will object to my making special comment on the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), not only for its information, but for its spirit. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) also emphasised something which I think it is very desirable to emphasise, that while we have to state quite clearly our convictions and our beliefs on a subject of this kind, we should try in every way possible to create or develop an atmosphere which is favourable to peace and harmony.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), who raised the subject, went into it in a good deal of detail, and he will not expect me to follow him through that, but I was glad to hear, not only from him, but from other hon. Members, even those with other points of view than his, that there was general approval of the action of His Majesty's Government, and that in acting as they have done apparently they have not only interpreted the wishes of the House, but also the mind of the country. It has already been expressed that the action which the Government took was taken
with great reluctance and with hopes that the Interregnum which now obtains will not be of long duration. There will at any rate be an opportunity given for calm, for all parties to reconsider their position and so to bring about an atmosphere, as I have already said, which is likely to bring harmony again.
I was asked one or two questions in this connection—I hope I have noted them all—and one was with regard to the publication of Papers. I quite understand the natural desire of hon. Members that there should be full information on this subject, and no doubt there are other documents which might be published which would throw further light on the situation. On the other hand, as the Foreign Secretary has already indicated, we do not wish the controversy to be further exacerbated, and it is desirable that as little opportunity as possible should be given for fresh recriminations; and while I believe that the documents which have been referred to will be available, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is not yet prepared to believe that it is in the best interests of all concerned that an additional publication should be made, at any rate in the meantime.

Mr. AMERY: Would it be possible, if the. Government do not contemplate the issue of further Papers, that those Papers which have been issued in Malta, and which are of great interest in their bearing on this question, might be made available to Members of the House of Commons?

Dr. SHIELS: I think that that is a consideration which could very well be taken into account and I shall be very glad to convey the suggestion to my Noble Friend. In regard to the ordinances which were declared invalid by the High Court of Malta these have been validated in the Order in Council which has received His Majesty's approval to-day. Provision is also made in that Order that the Governor in the exercise of his functions during the period intervening before the Constitution is re-established, has power to enact ordinances which will have full legal effect. The British Government has wished that the Maltese people should have the opportunity to work out their own destiny. It has not wished and does
not wish to interfere between local parties, but it has been compelled to take action owing to the intervention of an outside authority. I think it is well, however, to emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook said, namely, that the issue is not really a religious issue but is to some extent a domestic controversy. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out very well the local considerations responsible for the serious situation which arose, and he rightly emphasised the fact that we have intervened in the interests of self-government. The right hon. Gentleman made reference to applying the Constitution of Clarendon to Malta. That is a matter which will be carefully considered, but I may remind the Committee that the constitution applied to Malta was that of Amery. This, as I have said, I hope will be completely restored when the present regrettable trouble has been overcome. I do not think that there is anything more in regard to the position in Malta to which I need refer.

Mr. FOOT: There is just one point and that is as to the manner in which the position shall be made clear to the people of Malta. Will it be possible to ensure that the information shall not go through any prejudiced channel?

Dr. SHIELS: All the procedure is being conducted through the Governor and care has already been taken to see that the Prime Minister's statements have been published in Malta. I appreciate the importance of what the bon. Member has said that, not only the reason but the purpose of the British Government's action should be made quite clear, and I will certainly take care to represent what has been said to the proper quarters. I can almost say that the course of action suggested is one that will be taken, and that the people of Malta will have every opportunity of understanding the full facts of the situation.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Will it be remembered that many of the people of Malta are illiterate and do not even read a newspaper and that therefore some special means must be devised of bringing home to the common people of Malta that they are at liberty to vote as they think fit?

Dr. SHIELS: We are very well served by the Governor of Malta; he understands the position very well, and I am quite certain that he will have these facts in mind, and that he will take such action as will achieve that result. We all agree that it is desirable that, after a period of time when there is an opportunity for bitterness to subside and for reasonable counsels to prevail, this will prove only a temporary interruption in the peaceful working of the democratic institutions given to the Maltese people under the Constitution of 1921.
A number of other questions have been raised to-night and one of them has concerned African education, which has been raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Horrabin), and other hon. Members. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views of these hon. Members, and I agree with everything that they have said of the importance of education. I am only sorry that, they did not give me information that they were going to raise the subject of education, or I might have been supplied with figures showing that a great deal is being done in that way. Some Colonies are more advanced than others, but there are many of our African colonies which are doing splendid work in that connection. I would like to remind hon. Members, some of whom may have never known of it that we have in the Colonial Office a very able Advisory Committee on Education composed of some of the best educational experts in the country. That Committee was there when we came into Office, and we have done our best to develop it and to take full advantage of it.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it a Committee of English educational experts?

Dr. SHIELS: There are English educational experts on it, but there are also experienced colonists like Lord Lugard and Sir George Maxwell. We try to prevent it becoming too academic Joy taking care that all directors of education and governors and other officials, when they come to this country, are invited to the meetings of the Committee, and, wherever possible, they go over the problems with the Committee, and so
keep their feet on solid earth. I can assure the Committee that the work of that Committee is very fruitful. We have just finished a survey of the educational system in Nigeria. We are considering a scheme put forward by the very able director of education there, and there is every reason to have very great hope of the results which will follow the working out of that scheme. As regards the kind of education, that is a very important matter, but not one into which I am able to go fully to-night. I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that we as a Ministry ought not to pay very much heed to the fears of what may arise from the teaching of the English language. We are told that it may become dangerous to develop a black-coated brigade, because all Africans will want to become Government clerks. The number of such appointments is very limited, however, and therefore the majority of the people will have to adapt themselves to other occupations, and I think that the extension of the teaching will be likely to cure that propensity, whereas if we confine the teaching to a small class the position is likely to be intensified.
There are some differences of opinion both about the particular type of English education and the appropriate time at which it should be given, and this matter has been engaging our Attention, but there does seem to be a general concurrence of opinion among educationists that it is better to carry on in the vernacular up to the age of about 10 years, and after that to start with English. One of the difficulties relates to the supply of teachers, for the teachers must know something about the English language, and we have concentrated, and I think wisely, on providing training for teaching as being the most important line on which we can develop. I can assure hon. Members that all the points they have made are sympathetically regarded and are before the Colonial Office. On the question of linking this up with medical education, there ought to be a liaison between the medical service and the education service, and that is being carried out.
In regard to the women's question, child welfare, and so on, which have been referred to by the hon. Lady for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and
others, these subjects are being taken up with very great earnestness in the Colonial Office, and the existence of the Colonial Development Fund has given us some encouragement. The terms of reference of the Fund were broadly drawn, and it has been found possible to include in the schemes towards which assistance can be given schemes to develop and to assist the public health service. We have just had a committee of the Colonial Office sitting to devise the lines along which such assistance should be given, and I am certain that before very long we shall get very substantial assistance from this Fund for various Colonies which are not very well off, because as, I think, the hon. Lady for the English Universities said, "Whatever fine ideals you have, they cost money to carry out." There is no doubt that we have been hampered, especially in certain Colonies, such Nyasaland, because of the former parsimoniousness of the Treasury, but we are now hopeful that in Nyasaland and other parts we may be able, with the help of the Colonial Development Fund, not only to assist in public health but also in the training of subordinate medical personnel and of midwives and in other ways to meet the very real need to which hon. Members have called attention.
I would like to say a word about the subject which the hon. Lady the Member for The Wrekin (Miss Piston-Turbervill) raised, namely, the question of mui-tsai. I wish she had given me notice, because I should have been able to have brought more accurate data in regard to the subject. As I think she knows, in December last new regulations were put into force for the registration of employers, and six months are given for the change to be brought about. In July we expect to find out the result of the alteration. The hon. Lady seemed to suggest that there had been some failure to carry out the promises made in this direction, but she must remember this is a very difficult task. After all, Hong Kong is a typically Chinese town, in very close association with the mainland, and it is said that 10,000 people pass to and fro every day. It is a very difficult thing to carry out many of these regulations which we regard as desirable, but no more mui-tsai are allowed to be brought in, and every
effort is being made to carry out the decision which has been made. At the same time, there is a difference of opinion even among British people as to whether all the results which are expected by some people from the abolition of mui-tsai will be realised. There is no doubt that there are some disadvantages in the girls being reduced to the status of domestic servants without the protection which they have under the present system. However, it has been agreed by the House and by successive Governments that, even though there are disadvantages in the abolition of mui-tsai, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and that we must make an effort to carry out the policy.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly answer my questions as to whether it would be possible for the question of the tolerated houses, which are so closely allied to this matter, to be dealt with at the Imperial Conference and whether the six months report will be published?

Dr. SHIELS: I was just coming to that point, but, to finish off the subject of the mui-tsai, as I say, it has been decided that this is the proper method of dealing with the subject, and we are going ahead and doing our very best to carry it out. But when accusations are make of broken pledges I would remind hon. Members that the problem is an extremely difficult one and that it is a case to a large extent of legislating against local public opinion. As everyone knows, when you try to enforce measures which have not the full weight of public opinion behind them, the task of administering them is very much more difficult.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Could the Under-Secretary say whether the Chinese on the mainland around Hong Kong are taking any steps to prevent mui-tsai, and putting a stop to the practice in the whole area of China?

Dr. SHIELS: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Chinese authorities have seriously tried to do something of that kind, but the disturbed state of China has made their efforts largely ineffective. Therefore, we have really had no assistance from outside which we might have had under normal
circumstances. The policy of the Government is to get rid altogether of these tolerated houses in Hong Kong. The Secretary of State and I myself had an interview with the new Governor of Hong Kong before he sailed and he has been asked to make a careful personal investigation into these questions and to advise as to the best way in which these evils can be dealt with. I think the hon. Member for The Wrekin will see that we have all the facts fully in mind, and we realise how desirable it is that the state of things which she has described should not be allowed to exist.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet has asked me a question about the air mails. We are giving attention to all the questions affecting air communications, and are co-operating with the Air Ministry in regard to various matters connected with the air service. The hon. Member for Loughborough spoke about the liquor traffic in West Africa. I received notice that this subject was going to be raised, and I have figures which I think will show to the hon. Member that the subject is not quite such a serious one as he thinks. As a matter of fact there has never been any serious liquor problem in West Africa. [Interruption.] I agree that certain lurid statements have been made, but the figures are not easily got over. The Commission in Nigeria which reported in 1909 found that there was no ground for the allegations made and no evidence of widespread drinking. A report was made at the beginning of this year and there is unanimous testimony to the fact that drunkenness is almost unknown on the Gold Coast and in Ashanti, and the situation in this respect is better than it was before the War. If the hon. Member cares to put down a question on the Order Paper asking for the figures, I shall be pleased to supply the information.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PLURALITIES MEASURE, 1930.

Mr. G. MIDDLETON: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this
House do direct that the Pluralities Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
This is one of those Measures which have been passed by the Church Assembly, under the powers conferred upon them by this House, and which they have to bring here in order to get passed into law. The Measure has had very careful consideration on the part of the Church Assembly, and is regarded by them as necessary at the present time in order to meet difficulties which have arisen in regard to man-power and in other respects affecting the work of the Church. Safeguards against any abuse are provided by the Measure, and there can be no fear that the power which is conceded in this Measure will be treated lightly. Hon. Members will find from the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, that the recommendations of a diocesan commission which has inquired into the necessities of the case have in every instance to be approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the bishop of the diocese, and the patron or patrons concerned.
The parishes which are likely to be affected by this Measure are usually very small. To-day, at the Ecclesiastical Commission, I myself was dealing with parishes whose population were only 42 and 50, and I think it is obvious that in such circumstances it is a waste of manpower not to be able either to combine the parishes or to have a measure of plurality. It is proposed to give to the diocesan commission which inquires into the question of unions of parishes, the power to recommend that an incumbent may hold these small parishes in plurality: and that will very often be the precedent condition to a union which may come later. In regard to parishes which may become largely populated later, this Measure will, by its temporary character, enable a later separation to be more easily effected than it would be under the Union of Benefices Act. Therefore I submit the Measure in the hope that it may receive the approval of the House.

Major Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. EDE: I think it is a matter of great regret that these important Measures come before the House in the way that they do. This is the fourth or
fifth time in the course of this Session that, late at night, we have had placed before us Measures which very vitally affect the spiritual interests of great sections of the people. The Report from the Ecclesiastical Committee of this House is absolutely unenthusiastic about this Measure. In fact, I can go so far as to say that the very lukewarmness of the report would be a sufficient ground for asking the House to reject the Measure. After telling us that it is to amend a Statute that was passed for the protection of parishioners as far back as the reign of Henry VIII, whose interest in ecclesiastical matters is so well known, it goes on to say this:
The Committee note that the proposed Amendment constitutes a serious extension of the power to hold benefices converted plurality which can only be justified on the ground of the existing shortage of clergy and, even so, only subject to proper safeguards.
It is safe to say if there is one way to perpetuate the existing shortage of clergy it is to make it easier for one of the richest churches in Christendom to go on with an insufficient man power. This is exactly the wrong way to attempt to cure the existing shortage of the clergy. They go on:
Their attention has been drawn to the fact that the safeguards provided under the measure are less than those in a case where a union of benefices is proposed. …
they say in the next paragraph:
The result of this proposal will be that whereas in the case of the union of benefices a scheme must be submitted to His Majesty in Council with a provision that appeals shall be heard by the Judicial Committee, in the case of a plurality no such appeal is possible.
Yet we have the hon. Member who moves this recommendation telling us that he hopes that as a result of these pluralities being established they will lead to a union. There is no ground for asking the House to pass this Measure to-night. It is a matter which goes against the whole policy of the House in the matter of benefices for the last couple of hundred years. The scandal of pluralities led to very grave action being taken at various times to bring it to an end, and I am surprised that a Member sitting on the same side of the House as me should urge this Measure on the House on no other grounds than that it will enable the Church to escape from its obligation of
paying a proper salary to its clergy by getting one man to do two jobs. It is a new doctrine for me to be asked to subscribe to. I heard an hon. Member earlier dealing with the question opt policemen holding two jobs, and suggesting that one way of dealing with the unemployment problem was to deal with that. I cannot help thinking that the same thing ought to be applied to this Measure. [Interruption.] I went to a Division last time and only had three Members against the strong support which my hon. Friend got from the Government Whips and I do not intend to put the House to the trouble of a Division against that kind of opposition. But I should be failing in my duty to my constituents and to the parishes which will be affected by the Measure if I did not make the strongest possible protest against the Measure being submitted at all, especially under these conditions.

Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member has really a little misconceived the true purport of the Measure. The truth is that the Ecclesiastical Committee at first sight did not like the Measure, but on further examination they became converted and saw that their original objections to it were fairly met. The report bears the marks of having been first framed in a spirit of criticism, and afterwards in a spirit of approval. I am sure the hon. Member will see that really the Report is a very important testimony, since it was begun by somebody who was rather hostile to the Measure and became converted.

Mr. EDE: I think it was the other way round.

Lord H. CECIL: No, let me just try to explain how the matter stands. This is an Amendment of the Pluralities Act. License to unite two benefices or more in plurality was always contemplated under the Pluralities Act of 1838, but was subject to-special restrictions, modified in view of the present shortage of clergy. This provision is not in order to try to make clergymen take two jobs, but in order to try to get enough clergy to do the jobs. It is the want of clergy. In order to meet this situation, it is proposed to relax a little the provisions of the Pluralities Act in respect of the holding of more benefices than one, and this
Measure relaxes them in two ways. First, for all benefices it makes a different geographical limit. It substitutes rather longer mileage, which is quite reasonable at the present day, when transport is so much easier than it used to be, and a rather higher unit of population. This is subject to the old safeguards of the Pluralities Act, with regard to appeal to the Archbishop of the Province. Hon. Members will have probably heard the very characteristic story of the late Archbishop Temple who was being asked to give a licence of plurality. The incumbent was very anxious to have it, and said: "Really, your Lordship, it is only two miles as the crow flies." But "you are not a crow and you cannot fly," was the reply of the Archbishop.

Mr. EDE: The Noble Lord bias just said that the distance is altered. As I read the report, it stated four miles as the law stands at present, and there is no alteration in fact made in the mileage.

Lord H. CECIL: I think it is extended from two to four, is it not?

Mr. EDE: I cannot find four miles in the Bill as I read it.

HON. MEMBERS: It is in the Bill.

Lord H. CECIL: It is extended; four miles is substituted for two. That is a general provision. In addition to that are these requirements as to geographical limit and the population which are relaxed altogether where an inquiry has been held under the Union of Benefices Act and a report has been made favourable to the holding of the licence in plurality. That has had both on the mind of the Ecclesiastical Committee and on the mind of the hon. Member a slightly confusing effect, because it makes people think that you are going to change the whole machinery and substitute the Union of Benefices Act for the Pluralities Act. In order to get over these questions and get an independent judgment on the questions of neighbourhood and size of population, you have to have an inquiry. There are the old safeguards of the Pluralities Act, which is appealing to the Archbishop, just as there always were. And you have the immense safeguard of experiment. Parishes try whether they like having one incumbent for two parishes, and, if they do not like
it and in the process of time they do not get used to it, and prejudice against union has not diminished, they have an opportunity of objecting again when the incumbent dies or resigns and a new licence for plurality is applied for, so the safeguards are very great indeed. The danger that the interests of the parishioners will be neglected is avoided by the circumstances that not only the Bishop but also the quite independent authority of the Archbishop has to give consent, and because that consent cannot be of anything like a permanent character and must over and over again come up for revision every time a benefice is vacant. I earnestly hope that the House will pass this Measure, because the need occasioned by the shortage of clergy and the consequent spiritual life of the Church is really very grave, and we should not be acting honestly towards the Church under the conditions of Establishment of we stood in the way of a reform which really is in the interests of its spiritual welfare.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: I rise to oppose this Measure because the parishioners are not safeguarded. They have no voice in the matter at all. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Bishop, the patrons, the Archbishop, all have a voice, but no voice is given to the parishioners. I am speaking of an experience that came under my observation on Sunday last. The parish in question has been forced into a union and the parishioners are almost unanimously against the union,
and it is causing great discontent. In this parish there is a great deal of building going on and properties and houses are being erected, and the spiritual needs of the parish are going to be grossly neglected. We pride ourselves in the Church of England on being the Church of the people and I think this is a retrograde Measure. The better method, in a mixed church like the Church of England, would be to pay the clergy a living wage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Pluralities Measure, 1930, he presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMKNT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: In view of the lateness of the hour, I propose to give notice that I shall raise the question of Unemployment Grants on Monday next.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.